James D. G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus

| James D. G. Dunn

NEW TESTAMENT

The Evidence for Jesus

By James D. G. Dunn
Foreword by Howard Clark Kee

“Professor Dunn joins the skills of biblical criticism and
apologetics with remarkable success.”—Gerard §. Sloyan

An acknowledged New Testament authority, James D. G. Dunn
here makes an important contribution to contemporary thought.
He looks at the origins of Christianity in the light of modern
scholarship, demonstrating why Christians should “welcome the
critically inquiring and investigative skills of scholars.”

Dunn focuses on four main questions:
1. Are the Gospels fact, fiction, or what?
2. Did Jesus claim to be the Son of God?
3. What did the first Christians believe about the
resurrection?
4. Was earliest Christianity one church or warring sects?

As Howard Clark Kee notes in the Foreword, ‘“The author’s

style represents an admirable balance between careful, informed
analysis of the evidence and the ability to discuss the material
with a minimum of jargon. . . ¢ {Thts-book}:could serve ~~7~"
effectively in undergraduate religion courses as a readable,
nontechnical introduction to sources and critical methods in the
study of the Gospels.”

James D. G. Dunn is Professor of Divinity at the University of
Durham, England. He is the author of Baptism in the Holy
Spirit, Christology in the Making, and Unity and Diversity in
the New Testament. |

3 vides

THE WESTMINSTER PRESS ISBN 0-664-24698-2

The Evidence for Jesus

Books by James D. G. Dunn
Published by The Westminster Press

The Evidence for Jesus

Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry
Into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation

Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry
Into the Character of Earliest Christianity
Baptism in the Holy Spirit

Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious
and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the
First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament

James D.G.Dunn

The Evidence for Jesus

The Westminster Press
Philadelphia

© James D. G. Dunn 1985

First American edition

Published by The Westminster Press®
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
98765432 1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Dunn, James D. G., 1939~
The evidence for Jesus.

Bibliography: p.

Includes index

1. Bible. N.T. Gospels—Criticism, interpretation,
etc. 2. Jesus Christ—Historicity. 3. Jesus Christ—
Person and offices. I. Title.
BS2555,2.D86 1985 232.9'08 = 85-22540
ISBN 0-664-24698-2 (pbk.)

To
Kingswood Methodist Church
Nottingham

Contents

Foreword by Howard Clark Kee ix
Preface xii
1 - The Gospels: Fact, Fiction or What? 1
The Task of New Testament Scholarship 2
A Gap of Thirty to Forty Years 2
Translation from One Language to Another 3
The Paralle! Gospels 3
Tradition Edited and Interpreted 8
Different combinations
Different lengths
Different emphases
Corrections
Different versions
Conclusions 27
Note on Professor Wells’ View 29
2 - Did Jesus Claim to be the Son of God? 30
The Jesus of John’s Gospel 30
The Problem of John’s Gospel 32

Jesus’ teaching style
The content of Jesus’ teaching
Explanations for the Differences between the Synoptics
and John 35
Wholly historical
Wholly theological
Theological elaboration of history

Jesus as the Son of God in John’s Gospel 43
Jesus as God’s Son in the Synoptic Gospels 45
Jesus’ own prayer
God as abba
The Uniqueness of the Title ‘Son’ 49

Note on Professor Smith’s View 51

viii

3-

Contents

What did the First Christians Believe about the

Resurrection? 53
The Task of Historical Reconstruction 54
The Data Concerning ‘the Resurrection of Jesus’ 56

Reports of Jesus’ tomb being found empty

Reported ‘sightings’ of Jesus after his death

Transformation of the first disciples and initial spread of the new faith

The very high estimate of Jesus which soon became established in
Christian faith

Claims of belivers since the beginning of Christianity to encounter
Jesus alive here and now

The Empty Tomb : 63

Conflicting evidence

Considerations in favour

Conclusions

Resurrection Appearances 69
Conflicting evidence
Considerations in favour
Alternative explanations
An odd belief

But What do We Mean by ‘Resurrection’? 73
Conclusions 75
Note on Professor Koester’s View 77
Earliest Christianity: One Church or Warring Sects? 79
The Myth of Christian Beginnings 80
The diversity of denominations
The Diversity of Christianity in the First Century 82
Two Forms of Earliest Christianity 88

Jewish Christianity
Gentile Christianity
The spectrum of first-century Christianity
Earliest Christianity in the Second and Subsequent Generations 93
Catholic Christianity
Jewish Christianity
Gnostic Christianity

Conclusions 99
Note on the Gospel of Thomas 101
Concluding Reflections 103
Suggestions for Further Reading 108

Index of Biblical References 111

Foreword

In 1984 a British TV series from London Weekend Television created
a sensation with a sequence of three programs called Jesus: The
Evidence. The announced purpose of the series was to give viewers
up-to-date information and insights on the historical evidence about
Jesus: what can be known about him and how historians evaluate that
evidence.

Although the series began with a balanced approach to the subject,
it became increasingly provocative and controversial by inviting as
experts on the subject a predominance of scholars whose views reject,
or at least call into question, traditional interpretations of the evidence
about Jesus. Further, there seems to have been some intention to make
the public think that the scholarly majority was trying to suppress the
results of new discoveries and new interpretations, since they ran
counter to orthodox views. Understandably, some viewers were an-
noyed at having been apparently deprived of access to new and revo-
lutionary information about Jesus, while many others were shaken by
allegedly historical evidence which challenged the traditional under-
standings of Jesus. When the series appeared on public television in
the United States, it did not create the stir here that it did in Great
Britain, in part because it was not so widely seen.

British television offered a follow-up series in an attempt to give
more moderate biblical scholars a chance to present their side of the
case and to respond to the radicals. As a result the controversy was, if
anything, extended and enlarged. Coming in conjunction with the
heated debate that arose when a theologian with controversial views on
the virgin birth and resurrection was consecrated a Bishop of the
Church of England, thoughtful people—in and out of the churches—
raised serious questions: Is the traditional faith of the church obsolete?
Is the church not being honest with the public? Have such recent
discoveries as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gnostic library in Egypt
discredited the Gospel picture of Jesus as we have known it? Is the
evidence not being candidly presented and discussed?

Foreword
x

The dominant voices among the group of British and American
scholars interviewed by the producers of the original British series had
seemed to answer these questions in the affirmative. Fortunately, there
were scholarly and churchly leaders across Great Britain who raised
serious and responsible challenges to these radical conclusions. Among
the latter was James D. G. Dunn, Professor of Divinity at the University
of Durham in northern England, an active churchman and a prolific
writer. Professor Dunn is personally interested in the daily life and faith
aspects of Christianity as well as in its intellectual dimensions. It was
appropriate, therefore, that the Durham Council of Churches should
ask him to give a series of lectures to an interchurch audience on the
same topic, “Jesus: The Evidence”—though for publication purposes
the title has been given a more positive note. These lectures have been
published in Great Britain and are now offered to American readers.

The author’s style represents an admirable balance between careful,
informed analysis of the evidence and the ability to discuss the material
with a minimum of technical jargon. There is a refreshing candor in
Professor Dunn’s approach. He takes his lay readers seriously and
introduces them in a lucid way to scholarly examination of the New
Testament evidence. The result is an excellent introduction to the study
of the Gospels which provides a fine base for exploring other dimen-
sions in addition to the historical questions. There is an abundance of
sound advice to the reader about what to look for and what not to look
for; about how different the ancient world’s approaches to biography
and historical reporting are from our own; about the distinctive view-
points presented by each of the Gospel writers; about the ancient
meaning of a basic term like “Son of God” as used by and applied to
Jesus.

One of the most effective sections of the book is the chapter dealing
with the resurrection. What is the evidence that Jesus rose from the
dead? What did the early church writers, especially Paul, mean by the
claim? The author makes a powerful case for his assertion that belief
in the resurrection of Jesus can be documented very soon after his
death, contrary to the theory advanced by some that the idea of the
resurrection was set out as a means of bolstering the eroding confidence
of Jesus’ followers as time passed and the world seemingly remained
unchanged.

A central contribution of this book is the author’s detailed sketch of
some of the differences in belief, in organizational structure, and in
future expectations that characterized the various groups within the
early church——which was nevertheless united in its belief that God had
raised Jesus from the dead. By pointing out that differing views were
present in the church from earliest times, Professor Dunn warns against
the modern tendency—represented by both conservative and ecumeni-
cal movements—to set up a single norm for belief or church organiza-

Foreword Xi

tion. Instead, he pleads for Christians to recognize and to accept one
another in spite of the diversity of faith and practice. He also demon-
strates how fundamentally different Jesus was from either the founder
of the Dead Sea community or from the figure of Christ represented in
the various Gnostic Gospels, where he is often a kind of divine visitor
masquerading as a human being. He notes how late (second to fourth
century) these Gnostic Gospels are, and how they betray their having
developed their ideas on the basis of the canonical Gospels. These
arguments run counter to some of the sensational claims that Jesus was
a Gnostic or a magician or a member of the Dead Sea sect, or that he
never lived!

What Professor Dunn has written is not a simpleminded knee-jerk
reaction to a serious scholarly challenge, not a know-nothing conserva-
tive retreat. Instead, these chapters are informed and informative, schol-
arly and devout, honest and straightforward. They should serve well
for lay study groups in churches, for ministers who want to catch up
with what is going on in the field of studies of Jesus, and for adult
study courses, in or out of the church, on or off campus. They could
also serve effectively in undergraduate religion courses as a readable,
nontechnical introduction to sources and critical methods in the study
of the Gospels.

This book is an attractive, readable, sensible counterbalance to sen-
sationalism. Too much is at stake on the matter of common understand-
ing of Jesus—at stake for the church and for contemporary culture—to
allow the evidence about him to be exploited by those who for personal
reasons want to discredit him or to undermine the Christian tradition.
James Dunn offers here a sane, wise, readable response to the spoilers,
as well as a model for serious study of the evidence.

Howard Clark Kee
Boston University

Preface

In April 1984 a London Weekend Television series entitled Jesus:
The Evidence appeared in Britain. The object of the three-part program
was to make a wider public aware of how New Testament scholars and
historians of Christian origins have come to view the beginnings of
Christianity. The series set itself the task of demonstrating the impact
of historical scholarship on the traditional Christian understanding of
who Jesus was and how he came to be regarded as God incarnate. It
was an attempt to bridge the gap between the scholar’s study and the
pew, in order that the impact of such scholarly findings might be felt
more widely.

The idea was a laudable one. Such a gap undoubtedly exists, a gap
both of communication and of understanding, which gives considerable
occasion for misunderstanding and confusion. Unfortunately the series
served, if anything, to widen the gap rather than to span it. The opening
program was on the whole a well-balanced presentation of develop-
ments behind and conclusions of current New Testament scholarship.
But, regrettably, as the series progressed the presentation of Christian-
ity’s beginnings became increasingly unbalanced. Maverick and un-
representative opinions were given more exposure in the first two
programs than they probably deserved, but at least the failure of such
Opinions to win much (if any) support was noted, and viewpoints more
typical of the bulk of scholarship were given reasonable coverage.
However, in the third program all restraint seems to have been cast
aside, and any attempt to present a balanced account of scholarly
agreement and disagreement was abandoned in favor of a single, rather
idiosyncratic viewpoint.

Not surprisingly, the series caused considerable puzzlement and
even distress to many Christians—a distress which was aired on a
subsequent current affairs program and a puzzlement which could not
be set at rest by a discussion program following the series. A large part
of the problem was that the series had mixed, in too indiscriminate a
way, both the representative and the unrepresentative views of particu-

Preface xiii

lar scholars. From what they saw and heard, viewers who lacked
training in biblical studies or theology were unable to distinguish be-
tween the weightier and the less weighty opinions. They were given
too little advice as to whether what was projected was accepted by the
majority of scholars in this field or only by a lone voice resisting the
larger consensus. Of course, scholarship does not and should not pro-
ceed by majority vote! One scholar in a hundred may be right, and the
remaining ninety-nine wrong. But when lay people are being exposed
to the claims of scholarship, they at least have a right to know how
well these claims have been received by other scholars.

The task to which Jesus: The Evidence addressed itself is therefore
important. Christians should want to know the truth—even when it
hurts. But the programs failed to carry through the task to best effect.
‘Since viewers did not know how much weight to put upon the various
views expressed, there was a considerable danger that they would lump
them all together and dismiss the claims of scholarship as a whole.
Instead of helping to advance the education of the Christian public, the
series may have set it back—may, indeed, have strengthened rather
than weakened the latent anti-intellectualism that lies close to the
surface of much popular religion.

Because of the puzzlement and distress caused by the series, and
because of its failure to give an adequately representative portrayal of
the impact of scholarship on our understanding of how Christianity
began, it seemed desirable to offer an alternative portrayal. The lectures
on which the following chapters are based had therefore two aims. The
first was to set the record straight as to what scholarship can and does
say on a number of key issues relating to Jesus and the beginnings of
Christianity—to exorcize, if you like, the demon of anti-intellectualism
which causes some Christians to assume that all scholarship is by
nature negative and skeptical. The second was to engage in a little bit
of Christian adult or continuing education—something the Christian
churches in Britain have not been very good at hitherto, but for which
there is an ever-increasing need, as indeed the furor resulting from the
series confirmed. The write-up of the lectures follows the outlines
handed out at the lectures, so that the following chapters have the same
twofold aim. The title was chosen, on the suggestion of John Bowden,
Editor of SCM Press, both to echo the title of the TV series and to give
it an appropriately more positive note.

Jesus: The Evidence raised a goodly number of issues. It would not
be practical to go into them all, in either a brief lecture series or a book.
But as I viewed the programs and subsequently consulted the brief
notes I made at the time, it seemed to me that there certainly were four
Controversial claims made by the series that deserved closer attention.
These formed the individual titles of the original lectures, and I have
retained them as titles of the chapters that follow.

xiv Preface

In offering this all-too-limited exercise to a wider North American
readership, it is my hope that it may make a positive contribution to
theological and church education programs as well. In particular, it is
my hope that here too it will serve as something of a bridge between
scholars and those Christians who lack professional theological train-
ing. If I am not mistaken, suspicion and fear of scholarship is even
more widespread in church circles in America than in Britain: the fear
that to begin to inquire into the faith is to threaten it, that even to ask
questions is to undermine it; the suspicion that theology is by its nature
inimical to and subversive of faith. As will be evident from what
follows, I do not share these fears and suspicions, though I can ap-
preciate the concern. But they seem to me to be rooted in a misun-
derstanding of theology and to have a crippling effect on that “faith
which works through love.” It is my earnest hope that the following
chapters will help quiet some of these suspicions and fears and remove
some of these misunderstandings.

In particular, too, I am conscious of the continuing debate in the
United States about the Bible and its authority within church and
seminary circles—the concern that the Bible is not being given its
proper place or allowed to speak with its proper authority. These are
concerns I share, though often in different terms from those used by
the chief protagonists. Here too I would hope that these chapters can
serve as something of a bridge—on the one hand by showing how little
ground some very radical opinions have, whether within the New Tes-
tament or outside it; on the other by showing that, at its best, scholarship
is simply trying to hear and understand the New Testament as it really
is, rather than as some dogmatic opinion says it should be. Only when
the New Testament writings are properly understood on their own
terms can they be properly understood in their message for today.

If this book contributes in even a small measure to such bridge-
building, I will be more than content.

1 The Gospels: Fact, Fiction or What?

‘For the last four hundred years New Testament scholarship has
steadily eroded confidence in the historical reliability of the Bible and
in the image it paints of Jesus as the Son of God.’ So claimed the
commentary at the beginning of the third programme in the series
Jesus: the Evidence. This was by way of a summary of what had
been said in the previous programmes. Both claims are of major
importance for Christians and provide the subject and starting point
for our first two chapters.

In fact the focus of the claim about ‘historical reliability’ had been
the Gospels’ portrayal of Jesus. And the question about Jesus’ image
as ‘the Son of God’ centred on the issue of how Jesus was regarded
during his lifetime and how he would have regarded himself. Fortu-
nately these are more managable proportions for single lectures or
chapters of an introductory kind. It is these more limited issues with
which we will deal.

Is the claim about the historical reliability of the Gospels correct?
Has New Testament scholarship undermined the ordinary Christian’s
belief that the Gospels are historically trustworthy and accurate in
what they tell about Jesus?

The answer is, Yes and No! Let me explain, first in summary
form, and then at greater length. New Testament scholarship seeks to
understand the Gospels as they are — to recognize what they are. It
wants to find out the degree to which the Gospels themselves are
concerned with historical information about Jesus, and the degree to
which they present an interpretation of that information.

So the answer is Yes, in that New Testament scholars have come
to recognize that interpretation is present in the Gospels. And where
there is interpretation, there is more than straightforward historical
information. But the answer is also No, in that when the Gospel
writers intended to provide historical information, that information
can be trusted as reliable. The interpretation builds upon the historical
information.

2 The Evidence for Jesus

That is the short answer. In the rest of the chapter I will try to
explain the reasoning behind that answer in more detail.

The Task of New Testament Scholarship

It is important to underline the point, before going any further, that
in reaching such a conclusion the New Testament scholar is not
imposing his own prejudices (whatever they may be) on the text. The
chief aim of the typical New Testament scholar is to describe what
he sees before him in the Gospels and to achieve as full as possible an
explanation of what he sees there. In the following pages, therefore, I
will begin to sketch in the outlines of what the New Testament scholar
is confronted with when he studies the Gospels and hope thereby to
show why he is forced by the Gospels themselves to reach his ‘Yes
and No’ conclusion. We will look at some of the features and charac-
teristics of the Gospels which cause New Testament scholarship to
conclude that the Gospels are history, but not (usually) ‘simple’
history. Students at university or college spend a year or more on
such a study of the Gospels. So the following sketch is very rough,
and we can provide only a few examples.

There are a number of basic facts with which all study of the
Gospels has to reckon. I have in mind four such basic facts. The first
two I need only mention. The third and particularly the fourth will
reward more detailed investigation.

A Gap of Thirty to Forty Years

The Gospels were not written by Jesus himself or at his dictation.
They consist at best of the recollections of what Jesus did and said
during his ministry in Palestine. Jesus was put to death in the early
30s of our era. The earliest Gospel was probably not written till the
late 60s. So there is a time gap between Jesus and the first Gospel -
a gap of about thirty-six or thirty-nine years, possibly a little more,
possibly a little less.

This gap may or may not be significant in our present inquiry. On
the one hand, we should not assume that the events of Jesus’ ministry
and his teaching necessarily faded or became confused in the minds
of the disciples who had first followed him. In societies where the
spoken word was the chief means of communication, and where a
large portion of education consisted in rote-learning, memories were
better trained and almost certainly a good deal more retentive. On
the other hand, we should not assume that such oral transmission had
the same quality as a tape recording today, or that the teachers of
such oral traditions necessarily saw such parrot-like reproduction as

The Gospels: Fact, Fiction or What? 3

their sole objective. The Gospels themselves present a different
picture. As we shall see.

Translation from One Language to Another

Jesus preached and taught in Aramaic, the chief common man’s
language in first-century Palestine. But the Gospels were all written
in Greek. Anyone who is able to communicate in different languages
or who has had to translate from one language to another will be
very aware that all translation involves some degree of interpretation.
It is often the case that there is no precise equivalent in the other
language, and a choice has to be made between several words in
order to translate one word of the original, or a phrase has to be used
instead. You only need to compare the various modern translations of
the New Testament itself to see the point.

Even more difficult is it to render idioms from one language into
the different idioms of another, or to allow for the nuances which
particular ideas have in the original tongue. The Salvation Army
when it first moved into Paris thought to launch a French equivalent
to War Cry under the title Amour, but realized just in time that Army
lasses trying to sell Amour on the Paris boulevards were liable to
create a false impression! Translators soon realize that a literal trans-
lation is more often than not a poor translation, or indeed a wrong
translation. We have to recognize, therefore, that even the act of
translating Jesus’ words and first reports of Jesus’ doings from
Aramaic to Greek necessarily involved a significant element of
interpretation.

The Parallel Gospels

Three of the Gospels obviously use the same material for much of the
time - Matthew, Mark and Luke. We will concentrate on them in
this chapter and leave John’s Gospel till chapter 2.

Here is one of the things which strikes the scholar when he exam-
ines these three Gospels more closely: they have so much material
in common that they can be laid out in parallel columns and looked
at together. This is the simple reason why Matthew, Mark and Luke
are generally known as the ‘synoptic’ Gospels — because they can be
‘seen together’ (syn-optic).

To assist them in their examination of the Synoptics, scholars make
use of a synopsis - a book in which the Gospels have been laid out
to show where the matching passages come and how close (or not so
close) they are. We shall draw our illustrations from the Synopsis

4 The Evidence for Jesus

edited by B. H. Throckmorton which uses the Revised Standard
Verson (RSV) English text.

The first illustration demonstrates the fact of the paralle] material.
The section of the Index opposite covers Matt. 13.53-18.35, Mark
5.1-9.50 and Luke 8.26-9.50. If we focus attention first on the three
columns in bold type on the left, it will immediately be seen that of
the 31 sections (106-136) no less than 24 have two or three versions,
and only 7 sections appear in a single Gospel. But this is only the
parallel material which comes in the same order in each Gospel.
When we include also the material in the right-hand columns (Paral-
lels and Doublets), we will see at once that there is much more
common material, and that only occasionally is there a single version
without parallel (as in Mark 8.22-26). In point of fact, almost all of
Mark’s Gospel appears also in Matthew.

When scholars have looked more closely at particular parallel pass-
ages, the next most obvious feature has usually been the closeness of
the parallels. Consider, for example, the section on John the Baptist’s
preaching common to Matthew and Luke.

JOHN'S PREACHING OF REPENTANCE

Matt. 3.7-10

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees
and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said

to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned
ou to flee from the wrath to come? § Bear
trait that befits repentance, 9 and do not
presume to say to yourselves, “We have
Abraham _as our father for 1 tell_you,
God is able from these stones to raise up

children to Abraham. '? Even now the axe

is laid to the root of the trees; every

tree therefore that does not bear good
fruit is cut down and thrown into the oN

Luke 3.7~9

7He said therefore to the multitudes
that came out to be baptized by him,
“You brood of vipers! Who warned

you to flee from the wrath to come? * Bear
fruits that_befit_repentance, and _do not
begin to say to yourselves, “We have

Abraham as our father”; for I tell you,
God is able from these stones to raise up

children to Abraham. 9 Even now the axe

is laid to the root of the trees; every

tree therefore that does not bear good

fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.’

Here there is almost one hundred per cent verbal agreement in
the two accounts of the Baptist’s words, as the underlining makes

clear.

Or consider the account of Jesus healing in the synagogue at Caper-
naum common to Mark and Luke.

The Gospels: Fact, Fiction or What?

INDEX OF THE GOSPEL PARALLELS

106 The Gerasene Demoniac

107 Jairus' Daughter and a
Woman's Faith

Matt.

108 Jesus is Rejected at Nazareth 13. 53-58 6. I-6a

109 The Sending out of the
Twelve

110 Herod Thinks Jesus is John,
Risen
111 The Death of John

112 The Return of the Twelve,
and the Feeding of the Five
Thousand

113 The Walking on the Water
114 Healings at Gennesaret

115 What Defiles a Man
116 The Syrophoenician Woman

117 The Healing of Many Sick
Persons ~ of the Deaf Mute

118 The Feeding of the Four
Thousand

119 The Pharisees Seek a Sign

120 A Discourse on Leaven
121 The Blind Man of Bethsaida

122 The Confession at Caesarea
Philippi and the First
Prediction of the Passion

123 The Conditions of
Discipleship

124 The Transfiguration

125 The Coming of Elijah

126 An Epileptic Boy Healed

127 The Second Prediction of the
Passion

128 The Temple Tax
129 The Dispute about Greatness

130 The Strange Exorcist °

131 On Temptations -

132 Concerning Salt

133 The Lost Sheep

134 On Reproving One's Brother
135 On Reconciliation

136 The Parable of the
Unmerciful Servant

14.1-2
3-12
13-21

22-33
34-36

15.1-26

21-28

15.29-31

Mark Luke
5. 1-20 26-39
21-43 40-56
6b-139.1-6
14-16 7-9
17-29 =
30-44 -10-17
45-52 =<
53-56 -
7.1+23 _
24-30 _
131-37 —
8.1-10 ~
11-13 -
14-21 —_
22-26 on
27-33 9.18-22
34-9.1 23-27
9.2-8 28-36
9-13 _
14-29 37-43a
30-32 43b-45
33-37 46-48
38-41 49-50
42-48 om
49-50 _

Parallels and Doublets

Matt.

8.28-34
9.18-26

9.35 10.1,
9-11, 14

9.36
15.32-39

4.24

14.13-21

12.38-39

18.18

10.33,
38-39

17.9 21.21

10.40
20.26-27
23.11-12

10.42 12.30
5.29-30
5.13

16.19

6.15

1.32 f. 3.10

Mark Luke

4.16-30

3.14-15 10.1-12

3.19-20

8.1-10 10.17

4.40 f
6.18-19

6.39

6.30-44 = 9.10-17

11.16, 29
12.54-56

12.4

12.9 14.27
17.33

9.37
9.9 17.6

11.22-23

10.15,
43-44

10.16 14.11
18.14, 17
22.26

11.23
17.1-2
14.34-35
15.3-7
17.3
17.4

The Evidence for Jesus

JESUS IN THE SYNAGOGUE AT CAPERNAUM

Matt. 7.28-29

% And when Jesus finished
these saying, the crowds were
astonished at his teaching,
2 for he taught them as one
who had authority, and not as
their scribes.

Mark 1.21-28 Luke 4.31-37

astonished at his at
for he taught them as one for his word was
who had authority, and not as with authority.
the scribes.
% And ® And

immediately there

in the synagogue

pe ct Ae ERE
spirit of an unclean demon;

with an_unclean spirit;

*4 and he cried out, and he cried out with a

ey oy ‘What loud voice, * ‘Ah! What
have you to do with us, have you to do with us,
Jesus of Nazareth? Have Jesus of Nazareth? Have

you come to destroy vs? you come to destroy _us?
I_ know who you are, the [ know who you are, the
Holy One of God." But Holy One of God. > But
Jesus rebuked him, saying, Jesus rebuked him, saying,
‘Be silent, and come out ‘Be silent, and come out
of him! *° And the unclean of him!" And when the demon
spirit, _convulsing” “him "and fad thrown him_down in the
crying with a loud voice, came midst, he came_out_of_ him,
out of him. having done him no harm.
27 And they were all amazed, so % And they were all amazed

that they questioned among and said to one _ another,
themselves, “saying, ‘What is ‘What is this word? “For
this? A new teaching! With au- with authority and power.

thority he commands even the he commands the unclean

unclean spirits, and they spats, and they come _ out.”
obey him.” “ And at once his °’ And reports of him

tain’ Spiced everywhere through

out all the surrounding region
of Galilee.

in the surrounding region.

Here the verbal agreement is not so close, but still close enough to
put it beyond doubt that we are dealing with the same episode. It is
probably significant that the parallel becomes closest in the verbal
exchange between the demoniac and Jesus (Mark, verses 24-25;
Luke, verses 34-35) — a strong indication that this was seen as the
focal point of the story. We might also note in passing the repeated
‘immediately’, ‘immediately’, ‘at once’ of Mark 1.21, 23, 28 - a
feature of Mark’s style which has the effect of keeping the narrative
lively and on the move.

A third example is the account of Jesus’ rejection at Nazareth,
where the parallel this time is particularly between Matthew and

Mark.

’ The Gospels: Fact, Fiction or What?

JESUS IS REJECTED AT NAZARETH

Matt 13.53-58

53 And when Jesus had finished these
parables, he went away from there, “ and

did this man get this
wisdom and these mighty works?

35 [s not this
the _carpenter’s son? Is not his mother
called Mary? And are not his brothers
James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
% And are not all his sisters with us?

then_did this man get_all_ this?” *’ And
they took offense at him, But Jesus said
to them, “A prophet is not without honor

except in his own country

and in his own house.’ 58 And he

Mark 6.1-6a

' He went away from there and came to

his own country; and his disciples fol-
lowed him. ? And on the sabbath he began

heard him were astonished, sayings ‘Where
hat is the

is hands! 3Is not this

the son

and brother of

ames and Joses and Judas and Simon,
and are not his sisters here with us?’

And

they took offense at him. 4 And Jesus said

to them, “A prophet is not without honor,

except in his own country, and among his

own kin, and in his own house.’ 5 And he

people and healed them. © And he marveled
because of their unbelief. because of their unbelief.
Once again the parallel is so close that we must obviously be dealing
with the same tradition.

Such closeness between accounts in different Gospels can only be
explained if in each case the Gospels are using the very same material.
Either the particular evangelist knew one of the other Gospels and
drew the material he wanted directly from there. Or both evangelists
had a common source on which they drew independently of each
other.

Moreover, these traditions about Jesus were already in Greek
before they reached the evangelists. We can tell this because the
verbal agreement is so close. Whereas, if each evangelist had been
translating independently from a common Aramaic source the Greek
translations would certainly have diverged from each other to a much
greater extent.

The fact that the same Greek translations of the earliest accounts
of Jesus (in Aramaic) were so influential, providing a major part of
two (or all three) of the evangelist’s material, is a strong indication
that the traditions about Jesus, as they circulated among the earliest
churches and were used by them (in worship and evangelism, instruc-
tion and apologetic), took a well known and well established form.

8 The Evidence for Jesus

This suggests a strong continuity between the earliest stages of the
tradition and the tradition as we now have it in the Gospels them-
selves. And where the continuity between the first eye- and ear-
witnesses is so strong, the likelihood that we are confronted with a
solid base of historical information is immeasurably strengthened.

Tradition Edited and Interpreted

However, it is also important to realize that the evangelists were not
simply recorders of tradition. They were also editors. They worked
upon and interpreted the traditions they used. This is the point at
which the original claim made by Jesus: the Evidence about New
Testament scholarship begins to gain some substance. So it is worth
developing this aspect of the Gospel traditions with some care. And
the simplest way to do that is to document and illustrate the kind of
features which have caught the scholar’s eye when he goes into more
detailed examination of the synoptic parallels.

Different combinations

The evangelists put the traditions about Jesus together in different
ways. For example, the Sermon on the Mount, set out opposite.

In the first column headed Matt. we see the familiar divisions of
the Sermon in Matt. 5-7. But in the right-hand column (Luke), notice
how and where the parallels come — from chapters 6, 8, 11, 14, 16,
12, 16, 6, 11, etc. - not in connected order. How to explain this
feature? It is unlikely that Luke has broken up and scattered a single
connected sermon. The most obvious explanation for what we see
before us is rather that Matthew constructed the Sermon by grouping
together elements of Jesus’ teaching which had come from different
points in his ministry. In other words the Sermon on the Mount was
almost certainly never delivered by Jesus as a complete sermon. It is
simply an editorial device to hold together a range of similar and
closely related teaching material derived from Jesus. It follows that
the impression given by Matthew that the sermon was delivered on
a single occasion is in fact not historical. But neither was it intended
to be! The technique of setting Jesus’ teaching in such a typical
framework would have been a quite familiar and acceptable editorial
device. The (strictly speaking) historical unreliability of the frame-
work leaves the question of the historical reliability of the content
quite unaffected.

This conclusion, which follows from the internal evidence of the
Gospels themselves, has an interesting confirmation from evidence

The Gospels: Fact, Fiction or What?
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT: MATTHEW 5-7

18 Introduction
19 The Beatitudes
20 The Parables of Salt and Light

21 Words of Jesus on the Law
22 On Murder

23 On Adultery

24 On Divorce

25 On Swearing

26 On Retaliation

27 On Love of One’s Enemies

28 On Aimsgiving

29 On Prayer

30 The Lord's Prayer

31 Words of Jesus on Fasting
32 On Treasures

33 The Sound Eye

34 Words of Jesus on Serving Two
Masters

35 On Anxiety
36 On Judging

37 On Profaning the Holy

38 God's Answering of Prayer

39 ‘The Golden Rule’

40 The Narrow Gate

41 The Test of a Good Man

42 Warning against Self-Deception
43 Hearers and Doers of the Word
44 The End of the Sermon

Matt.

§.1-2
3-12
13-16

17-20
21-26
27-30

Mark Luke

3.10 12.33-35

Parallels and Doublets
Matt. Mark Luke

3.13 6.12, 20
6.20-23
4.21 9.50 8.16 11.33
14,34-35
16.17 21.33
12.57-59

24.35 13.31
18.8-9
19.9
23.16-22

9.4348
10.11, 12 16.18
6.29-30

6.27-28,
32-36

18.35 11.25 [26] 1.24
12.33-34
11.34-36

16.13

12.2231

6.37-38,
41-42

4.24

11.9-13
6.31
13.23-24
3.9 6.43-45
6.46 13.26-27
6.47-49
1.21, 22 4.31-32 7.1 a

Outside the Gospels. Papias, a Christian writer from the second
century, in describing the Gospel of Mark, reports that

Mark, who was the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that

he remembered. . . but not in order.

. . . he accompanied Peter, who

adapted his instruction as necessity required (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical

History 3.39).

Here is a further reminder that we cannot and should not assume
that the evangelists were attempting to produce what we would call
a biography of Jesus. Their concern was rather to present their

10

The Evidence for Jesus

material in the way which best served their evangelistic, apologetic
or teaching purposes. Clearly they were concerned to preserve the

memory of Jesus’

words and deeds. But, equally clearly, they were

not concerned to reproduce these accounts in the order in which they

happened.

Different lengths

The evangelists tell their stories in Jonger and shorter versions.
Consider, for example, the account of the disciples plucking ears of
grain on the Sabbath.

PLUCKING EARS OF GRAIN ON THE SABBATH

Matt. 12.1-8

TAL that time Jesus went
through the grainficids on the
sabbath; his disciples

“But when the Pharisces saw it.
they said to him. “Look. your
disciples arc doing what_is_not
lawful to do on the sabbath.”
THe said to them. ‘Have
you not read what David did.
who were with
him: * how
house of God
and ate the bread
of the Presence. which it was
not lawful for him
to cat nor for
those who were with him.

he entered the

flaw how on the sabbath the
pricsts in the temple profane
the sabbath. and are guiltless?
®] tell you. something great-
er than the temple is here.
~ And if you had known what this
means. ‘Il desire mercy. and
not sacrifice.” you would not
have condemned the guiltless.

* For the

Son_of is lord of the

sabbath.”

man

Mark 2.23-28 Luke 6.1-5
> One sabbath he was going ! On a sabbath, while he was
through the _grainficlds: and going through the _grainficlds.

4 And them in their hands.

the Pharisees said to him, some of the Pharisces said.
“Look. why are they doing what ‘Why are you doing what is not
is_not_lawful on the sabbath> lawful to do onthe sabbath?
** And he said to them, ‘Have ? And Jesus answered. ‘Have
you never rcad what David did. you not read what David did
when he was in need and Was hun- when he was hungry. he and those
gry. he and those who Were with who were with
him: "how _he_enteted the him: ‘how he entered the
house of God. when Abiathar was house of God.

high priest. and atc the bread and took and ate the bread
of _the Presence. which it is of the Presence. which it is
not_lawful_for any but the not lawful for any but the
pricsts_to_cat, and also “gave priests to cat, and also gave

it to those who were with him” it to those with him?
te a ee erat

* And he said to them. ‘The

m. * And he said to them.
sabbath was made for Man, not

man for the sabbath: > so the ‘The
Son_of man _is lord eveh of the Son of man is ford, of the

sabbath.” sabbath.”

The Gospels: Fact, Fiction or What? 11

The most obvious difference is the longer version of Matthew — by
virtue of his having three extra verses (vv.5-7). The argument used
by Jesus in these verses fits more closely to the central issue of the
dispute (‘doing what is not lawful on the sabbath’). So it is less likely
that Mark’s version left just that section out of a larger version; and
more likely that Matthew inserted it (from where we do not know)
in order to tie Jesus’ answer more closely to the issue. But one way
or other, the tradition of the episode has been either expanded or
contracted in the course of transmission.

On the other hand, both Matthew and Luke lack a parallel to v.
27 of Mark. So again we have to conclude that those who passed on
the tradition of what Jesus said in relation to the sabbath felt free to
present it in a fuller or a less full version.

One other point from this passage is worth noting in passing. In v.
26, Mark’s version dates David’s action at the time ‘when Abiathar
was high priest’. This is factually inaccurate (the high priest was
Ahimelech - see [ Sam. 21.1). [t is obviously for this reason that
Matthew and Luke have both omitted the clause (as also various
manuscripts of Mark itself). In this case we have to conclude either
that Jesus himself was factually inaccurate or that Mark in repro-
ducing the tradition was not concerned to present historical infor-
mation with pedantic accuracy, and/or that Matthew and Luke in
abbreviating a word of Jesus also felt free to act as more than mere
passers on of tradition.

A better example of longer and shorter versions are the three
accounts of the raising of Jairus’ daughter and the healing of the
woman with internal bleeding.

JAIRUS’ DAUGHTER AND A WOMAN’S FAITH

Matt. 9.18-26 Mark 5.21-43 Luke 8.40-56

2t And when Jesus had crossed “Now when Jesus returned,

'8 While he was thus speaking again in the boat to the other the crowd welcomed him, for
to them, side, a great crowd gathered they were all waiting for
about him; and he was beside him. 4! And there came a man

the sea. % Then came one of named Jairus, who was

behold, a ruler came in the rulers of the synagogue, ruler of the synagOgue; and
Jairus by name; and seeing him, falling at Jesus’ feet

and knelt before him, he fell at his feet, 4 and besought him to come to his

saying, ‘My besought him, saying, ‘My house, “for he had an only

daughter has just little daughter is at the point daughter, about twelve years

died; but come and lay your of death. Come and lay your of age, and she was dying.
hand on her, and she will hands on her, so that she may
live.’ 9 And be made well, and _ live.’

Jesus rose and followed him, with 24 And he went with him. Anda As he went, the people

his disciples. great crowd followed him and pressed round him.
pressed round him.

12

2 And behold. a woman who
had suffered from a hemorrhage
for twelve years

came up behind him and
touched the fringe of his gar-
ment. 4 For she said to her-
self, ‘If I only touch his gar-
ment, I shall be made well.”

2 Jesus turned, and seeing
her he said, ‘Take heart,
daughter; your faith has made
you well. And instantly the
woman was made well.

25 And there was a woman who
had had a fiow of blood for
twelve years, * and who had
suffered much under many phy-
sicians. and had spent all that
she had, and was no better but
rather grew worse. 27 She had
heard the reports about Jesus,
and came up behind him in the
crowd and touched his garment.
2% For she said, ‘If I touch
even his garments, I shall be
made well.’ 2? And immediately
the hemorrhage ceased; and she
felt in her body that she was
healed of her disease. And
Jesus, perceiving
that power had gone forth from
him, immediately turned about
in the crowd, and said. ‘Who
touched my garments?3! And
his disciples said to him,
‘You see the crowd pressing
around you, and yet you say,
“Who touched me?” ’ 22 And he
looked around to see who had
done it. 33 But the . woman,
knowing what had been done to
her, came in fear and trembling
and fell down before him, and
told him the whole truth.

# And he said to her,
‘Daughter. your faith has made
you well; go in peace, and be
healed of your disease.’

35 While he was still speak-
ing, there came from the
tuler’s house some who said,
“Your daughter is dead. Why
trouble the Teacher any further?
% But ignoring what they said,
Jesus said to the ruler of the
synagogue, ‘Do not fear, only
believe.” 37 And he allowed no
one to follow him except Peter
and James and John the brother

The Evidence for Jesus

3 And a woman who had had

a flow of blood

for twelve years and could
not be healed by any one,

“came up behind him, and
touched the fringe of his gar-
ment,

and immediately her
flow of blood ceased.

45 And

in himself Jesus said, ‘Who was it that

touched me?’ When all denied
it, Peter said, ‘Master, the
multitudes surround you and
Press upon you!’ But Jesus
said, ‘Some one touched me;
for I perceive that power
has gone forth from me.”

47 And when the woman
saw that she was not hidden,
she came trembling, and
falling down before him de-
clared in the presence of all
the people why she had touched
him, and how she had been
immediately healed.

8 And he said to her,
‘Daughter, your faith has made
you well; go in peace.’

47 While he was still speak-
ing, @ man from __ the
ruler’s house came and said,
‘Your daughter is dead; do not
trouble the Teacher any more.’
50 But Jesus on hearing this
answered him,

‘Do not fear; only
believe, and she shall be well.”
51 And when he came to the
house, he permitted no one to

The Gospels: Fact, Fiction or What?

23 And when Jesus came to
the ruler’s house, and saw the
flute players, and the crowd
making a tumult, 24 he said.

‘Depart; for
the girl is not dead but
sleeping.. And they laughed

at him. 75 But when the crowd
had been put outside,

he went in and
took her by
the hand,

and the girl

arose.

2% And the report of this went
through all that district.

of James. 38 When they came to
the house of the ruler of the
synagogue, he saw a tumult,
and people weeping and wailing
loudly. * And when he had
entered, he said to them, ‘Why
do you make a tumult and weep?
The child is not dead but
sleeping.. * And they laughed
at him. But he put them all
outside, and took the child’s
father and mother and those who
were with him, and went in where
the child was. +! Taking her by
the hand he said to her, ‘Tali-
tha cumi’; which means, ‘Little
girl, 1 say to you. arise.”
* And immediately the gir! got
up and walked; for she was
twelve years old. And immediate-
ly they were overcome with amaze-
ment. 43 And he strictly charged
them that no one should know
this, and told them to give her
something to eat.

13

enter with him, except Peter
and John and James, and the
father and mother of the child.
52 And all were weeping and be-
wailing her; but he said,

‘Do not weep;
for she is not dead but
sleeping.” 53 And they laughed
at him, knowing that she was
dead.

54 But taking her by
the hand he called, saying,

‘Child, arise.’
55 And her spirit returned, and
she got up at once;

and he directed that some-
thing should be given her to
eat. % And her parents were
amazed; but he charged them
to tell no one what had
happened.

A glance is sufficient to show that Mark is significantly longer than
either Matthew or Luke, and that Matthew is a good deal shorter than
the others. In fact, whereas Mark uses 374 words to tell the tale, Luke
uses 280 words, and Matthew only 138 words — almost two-thirds less
than Mark. Again the evidence of the Gospels themselves forces us to
recognize, either that one evangelist has abbreviated a fuller account
of the episode, or that another has elaborated a briefer account, or both.

From both these examples we can hardly fail to conclude that the
evangelists were not concerned merely to reproduce the stories about
Jesus, and were certainly not concerned to reproduce with parrot-like
precision or in the same detail. At the same time, it would be perverse
to conclude that they were dealing with different episodes. Clearly it
is the same story in each case, and in each case we have no reason
to doubt that the story derives from memories of Jesus’ ministry. But
the fact remains that the story was retold in different ways, and
evidently it was quite acceptable to do so.

Different emphases

The evangelists tell stories from different angles, to make different
Points. Consider, for example, the account of the healing of the

centurion’s servant.

14

The Evidence for Jesus

THE CENTURION'S SERVANT

Matt. 8.5-13

5 As he entered Capernaum,

a centurion came forward to him, beseech-
ing him ¢ and saying, ‘Lord, my servant
is lying paralyzed at home, in terrible
distress.” 7 And he said to him. ‘I will
come and heal him.’

8 But the centurion answered him,
‘Lord,
I am not worthy to have
you come under my roof;
but only
say the word, and my servant will be

ealed. or am a man under
authority, with soldiers under me;
an say to one, Oo,” and he goes,

and to another, “‘Come,” and he comes,
and to my slave, ‘“‘Do this,” and he
oes it. en Jesus hear im,_he
marveled, and said

to those who followed him,

patna Spee enchant etnias

TT telf you, many will come from
east and west and sit at table with
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob

in the kingdom of heaven,

2 while the sons of the kingdom will be

thrown into the outer darkness; there

B And to the centurion Jesus said,
‘Go; be it done for you as you have
believed.’ And the servant was healed
at that very moment.

Luke 7.1-10

‘ After he had ended all his sayings
in the hearing of the people he entered
Capernaum. ee

2Now a centurion had a slave who

was dear to him, who was sick and at
the point of death. > When he heard
of Jesus, he sent to him elders of the
Jews, asking him to come and heal his
slave. 4And when they came to Jesus,
they besought him earnestly, saying,
‘He is worthy to have you do this for
him, 5 for he loves our nation, and he
built us our synagogue.”
6 And Jesus went with them. When he
was not far from the house, the cen-
turion sent friends to him, saying
to him, ‘Lord do not trouble your-
self, for I_am_not worthy to have
you come under my roof; 7 therefore I
did not presume to come to you. But
say the word, and let my servant

ealed. or I am a man set under
authority, with soldiers under me:
an say to one, “‘Go,” and he goes;

and to another, ‘“‘Come,”and he comes;
and to my slave, “‘Do this,” and he
oes it.’ 9 When Jesus heard this he
marveled at him, and turned and said
to the multitude that followed him,

[found such faith.

13.28-30: 28 ‘There you
will weep and gnash your teeth, when
you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and

all the prophets in the kingdom of God
and you yourselves thrust out. ” And
men will come from east and west, and
from north and south, and sit at

table in the kingdom of God. * And

behold, some are last who will be
first, and some are first who will be
last.”

7.10 And when those who had been sent
returned to the house, they found the
slave well.

The Gospels: Fact, Fiction or What? 15

Notice first of all that the core of the story is the same, almost
word for word. As with the example above (p. 6), it looks as though
the exchange between the chief characters in the episode (Jesus and
the centurion) is the focal point of the story (Matt. 8.8-10; Luke
7.6b-9). With such closeness of parallel it is hardly possible to argue
that there are two separate episodes here.

But notice secondly that there is nothing like the same closeness
between Matthew and Luke in the lead-up to the central exchange.
In fact the only points of contact between the two narratives are the
mention of Jesus entering Capernaum and ‘a centurion’. For the rest
they differ quite markedly. In the case of Matthew the centurion
himself approaches Jesus personally. In the case of Luke he sends
others to speak for him. Such a difference can be explained, of course,
by the fact that Matthew has chosen to abbreviate a fuller account
and so to omit what he regarded as secondary detail, or at least detail
of less immediate importance to the story. But whatever the reason
the conclusion drawn above (p. 13) is confirmed: one or other, or
both, of the evangelists were not so concerned with these details of
the story; they evidently did not see it to be their task to tell the
story precisely as it happened. To be sure, the divergence does not
affect the central part of the story (the exchange between Jesus and
the centurion), but it does mean that we today cannot be precisely
sure of the detail of whether Jesus and the centurion made their
exchange face to face or not.

When we look more closely at the other distinctive features of the
two versions of the story the reason for these different features begins
to become clearer. The reason why the accounts diverge so much is
because each evangelist is trying to make a different point.

Matthew evidently wants to emphasize the importance of faith. So
it is Jesus’ commendation of the centurion’s faith (v.10) on which he
builds his account. Hence he makes a point of re-emphasizing Jesus’
commendation of the centurion’s faith at the end of the narrative
(v.13). This also explains why he has attached Jesus’ saying about
membership of the kingdom at this point (vv.11-12); whereas Luke
records it in a quite different context (Luke 13.28-30), indicating that
most likely Jesus made the remark on some other occasion. But
Matthew has chosen to insert it here, between the two commen-
dations of the Gentile centurion’s faith, so that his readers will take
the very important point that entrance into the kingdom is through
faith. Since it is through faith, it is open to Gentiles as well as Jews.
Whereas Jews who presume upon their privileged position as God’s
chosen people (‘the sons of the kingdom’) will find themselves
Outside! And since the point being made focusses so strongly on the
Centurion’s faith, it makes more sense to present an abbreviated

16 The Evidence for Jesus

introduction to the encounter between Jesus and the centurion in
which the immediacy and directness of his faith in Jesus’ authority
and power comes to the fore.

On the other hand, Luke seems more concerned to emphasize the
centurion’s humility. So the element in the common core on which
Luke focusses attention is the opening utterance of the centurion, ‘I
am not worthy’ (v.6). It is for this reason that Luke has a fuller build
up to the central section. For the refusal of the centurion to come in
person is precisely what underscores the centurion’s humility. Hence
the distinctive Lukan element within the central core: ‘I am not
worthy .. . therefore I did not presume to come to you’ (v.7a). The
earlier mission of the elders on behalf of the centurion (vv.3—-5)
highlights the same point by way of contrast. Whereas the centurion
says, ‘I am not worthy’, the elders insist, ‘He is worthy’ (v.4).

Here again, then, simply by observing what the evangelists actually
wrote, we can see how one or other or both was willing to adapt the
detail of the common tradition in order to make his own point. The
editorial technique is not dissimilar to the telling of a punch-line joke.
What matters in a punch-line joke is, naturally enough, the punch-
line. Most retellers of such jokes know well that they must take great
care to get the punch-line just right in content and timing. The build
up to the punch-line is a different matter: it can be long or short; it
can vary in detail, often quite considerably. So somewhat similarly
with this example of a story about Jesus. Matthew and Luke recall
the common core with great care, because it was on the basis of this
central element that they were to build the particular point they each
wanted to make (the identification of the one commended by Jesus
as a Gentile is also part of the core). For most of the other elements
of the story the evangelists show themselves to be very flexible. From
this we may fairly deduce both that the common core derives from
Jesus’ ministry (that is why the evangelists are concerned both to
reproduce it and to draw important conclusions from it) and that the
evangelists felt free-er in their handling of what they regarded as the
subsidiary detail of the story.

One of the best examples of the same story told in different
versions, with different details and for different purposes, comes from
outside the Gospels. In the Acts of the Apostles, written by the author
of the third Gospel (Luke), we have no less than three accounts of
Paul’s conversion — Acts 9, 22 and 26. We need not reproduce them
here, though they could quite easily be set out synoptically, side by
side. When we do compare them, precisely the same features become
evident as those we have observed in the story of the centurion’s
humility/faith.

On the one hand, the same core is present in each — again, signifi-

The Gospels: Fact, Fiction or What? 17

cantly, the snatch of dialogue between Paul and the risen Christ, and
again word for word (Acts 9.5-6; 22.7-10; 26.14-16).

‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’
‘Who are you, Lord?’
‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; ... Rise ...’.

On the other hand, the surrounding details vary a good deal. For
example, in chapter 9 Paul’s commissioning to take the gospel to the
Gentiles is referred to only in the summons of Ananias to minister
to Paul (9.15~16). In chapter 22 Ananias alludes to it when he speaks
to Paul, but the more explicit commissioning seems to come later, in
Jerusalem (22.15, 21). While in chapter 26 the commissioning comes
immediately in the initial revelation of Jesus to Paul, and Ananias is
given no mention (26.16-18).

Not least of interest in this case is the fact that it is the same
author who tells these three different versions of the one story. When
different authors tell different versions of the same story it is always
open to us to argue that that was the version they received and they
each knew no other. But in this case that argument simply will not
work, In this case it is the same author (Luke) who records the
different versions within the same book. That must certainly indicate
that Luke himself was not concerned with pedantic uniformity or
strict consistency of historical detail. On the contrary he was quite
content to record three different versions whose details do not fully
accord with each other. (For another example, compare 9.7 with
22.9.)

From this we may make the same deduction as in the previous
example. On the one hand, the fact of the same common core,
preserved constantly in the midst of such shifting variation in other
details, points strongly to the conclusion that the snatch of dialogue
between Paul and the one he encountered had been firmly fixed from
the first - presumably burnt into Paul’s own memory in the encounter
itself. Common too is the element of Paul’s being called by the risen
Christ to take the gospel to the Gentiles. But this latter element could
be and was expressed differently. The sense of commissioning, to
which Paul himself bears testimony in his own letters (particularly
Gal. 1.15-16), evidently did not take a fixed form in the retelling.
The other details were subsidiary to these central points and could
be omitted, included, or varied, presumably as the situation and the
mood of the occasion determined.

In these two examples, then, we see clear cases of a core of
historical information obviously regarded as of central importance,
but also of interpretative use of that common core, resulting overall

18 The Evidence for Jesus

in the pattern of parallel and difference which makes up our Synoptic
Gospels.

Corrections

The evangelists correct misleading impressions given in the earlier
versions. The key word here is ‘correct’. It is not simply a case of
two versions which differ because of the evangelists’ differing
emphases. There are various occasions when they go out of their way
to modify or change the earlier version. Two of the best examples
come in passages where Matthew parallels Mark and where the most
obvious explanation of the divergence between them is that Mark is
the earlier and that Matthew has introduced the divergence as a form
of correction or improvement.

The first example comes in a passage already looked at — the
rejection of Jesus at Nazareth.

JESUS IS REJECTED AT NAZARETH

Matt. 13.53-58

8% And when Jesus had finished these
parables, he went away from there, * and

did this man get this _ get this
wisdom and these mi mighty works?

5 Is not this
the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother
called Mary? And are not his brothers
James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where
then did this man get ali this?’ °’ And
they took offense at him. But Jesus ‘said

to them, ‘A prophet is not without honor
except in his own country

and in his own house.’ * And he
did not do many mighty works there,

because of their unbelief.

Mark 6.1-6a

' He went away from there and came to
his own country; and his disciples fol-
lowed him. ? And on the sabbath he began

to teach in the synagogue; and many who
heard him were astonished, saying, ‘Where

did this man get all this? What is js the
wisdom given to him? What mighty works
are wrought by his hands! ?Is_not_this
the carpenter, the son
of Mary and brother of
James and Joses and Judas and Simon,
and are not his sisters here with us?’
And

they took offense at him. 4 And Jesus said
to them, ‘A prophet is not without honor,

except in his own country, and among his
own kin, and in his own house.’ * And he
could do no mighty work there, except
that he laid his hands upon a few sick
people and healed them. * And he marveled
because of their unbelief.

We saw above (p. 6) how closely parallel the two accounts are.
This time we look at the differences. The most significant difference

comes at the end —

in v.5 of Mark and v.58 of Matthew.

The Gospels: Fact, Fiction or What? 19

Mark — ‘he could do no mighty work there. . .”
Matt. — ‘he did not do many mighty works there’.

Mark’s is the most striking version, and one can readily see that it
might well have been a cause of some questioning or even of offence
among some early disciples — the idea that Jesus was powerless in the
face of unbelief and unable to do any miracle. Presumably this is the
reason why Matthew modified Mark’s account at this point; (the
alternative suggestion that Mark introduced the more difficult reading
by changing Matthew’s version seems a good deal less likely). His
abbreviation of Mark’s three lines is rather neat: he keeps the form
of Mark’s first line, but alters it to convey the sense of the last two
lines. So in fact he repeats Mark’s point, but at the same time he
effectively eliminates the potential problem raised by Mark’s wording.

Before moving on to our next example, we should notice the other
significant difference between the two accounts — Mark’s v.3 and
Matthew’s v.55.

Mark - ‘Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary... ?’
Matt. - ‘Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary?’

In Mark Jesus himself is called ‘the carpenter’. Whereas in Matthew
it is not Jesus who is called the carpenter but his father. The reason
for the change here lies probably in the following phrase — ‘the son
of Mary’. In those days a man would normally be known by reference
to his father - X, son of Y. To call a man the son of his mother would
usually imply therefore that his father was unknown - that is to
say, he was illegitimate. Mark’s version may, of course, provide an
interesting reflection of the fact that there was something odd about
Jesus’ birth (cf. Matt. 1-2 and Luke 1-2). But the point here is that
Matthew seems to have been unwilling to preserve what, in everyday
language, would normally be regarded as an insult. (To call someone
a ‘bastard’ is normally an insult in any language.)

What is also interesting is the way in which Matthew effects the
change. Once again he stays as close as he can to Mark’s wording ~
retaining the key words ‘carpenter’, ‘son’ and ‘Mary’ (= mother).
But he changes their relationship just enough to eliminate the possibly
insulting implication. The result is that the second question is slightly
more awkward (‘Is not his mother called Mary?’), but the basic sense
is the same. Once again then we see a concern to hold as closely as
Possible to the tradition, combined with a willingness to change the
Sense of the tradition.

The second example of Matthew correcting Mark comes at the
beginning of their accounts of the rich young man meeting Jesus.

20

Matt. 19.16-30

16 And behold, one came up

to him,
saying, ‘Teacher, what good
deed must I do, to have eternal
life?” '’ And he _
him, ‘Why do | do you ask me about
what is good? One there re is who
is good. . If you would enter
life, keep the commandments.’
'§He said to him, ‘Which?
And Jesus said, ‘You shall not
kill, You shall not commit
adultery, You shall not steal,
You shall not bear false wit-
ness, 9 Honor
your father and mother,
and, You shall love your neigh-
bor as yourself.' 2° The young
man said to him, ‘All
these I have observed; what
do J still lack?’

21 Jesus said
to him, ‘If you would be
perfect, go, sell what you
possess and give to the
poor, and you will have
treasure in heaven; and

come, follow me.’

THE RICH YOUNG MAN
Mark 10.17-31

" And as he was setting out
on kis journey, a man ran up
and knelt before him, and
asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what
must I do to inherit eternal
life?” "And Jesus said_to
him, ‘Why do you call_me

good? No one is good
but God alone.
19 You know the commandments:

‘Do not
kill, Do not commit
adultery, Do not _ steal,
Do not bear false _wit-

ness, Do not defraud, Honor
your father and mother.” ”

2) And he

said to him, ‘Teacher, all
these I have observed from my
youth.” 2! And Jesus looking
upon him loved him, and said
to him, ‘You lack one thing;
go, sell what you
and give to the
poor, and you will have
treasure in heaven; and

come, follow me.*

have,

The Evidence for Jesus

Luke 18.18-30

'8 And a ruler
asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what
shall [ do to inherit eternal

life?” ' And Jesus said to
him, “Why do you call me

good? No one is good
but God alone.

20 You know the commandments:

‘Do not
Do not
kill, Do not steal,
Do not bear false wit-
ness, Do not defraud, Honor
your father and mother.” *

commit adultery,

21 And he
said ‘All
these I have observed from my

youth.” 2 And when Jesus
heard it, he said
to him, ‘One thing you still
lack. Sell all that you
have, and distribute to the
poor, and you will have
treasure in heaven; and

come, follow me.’

In this case it would appear that it was the opening exchange
between the man and Jesus which caused the problems. The man
addresses Jesus as ‘Good teacher’. And Jesus replies with a mild
rebuke: ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone’
(Mark 10.17-18). Luke sees no difficulty with these words and repro-
duces them more or less exactly. Not so with Matthew ~ as we see
from the synopsis. The difficulty for Matthew presumably lay in the
fact that Jesus was being shown by Mark to disclaim any right to the
description ‘good’. And by his own logic, Jesus was thereby
disclaiming any right to be regarded as divine. If only God is ‘good’,
and Jesus rebukes the address ‘Good teacher’, the most obvious
corollary is that Jesus is not God.

Once again Matthew solves the problem by modifying Mark’s
wording. And once again the surgery is very neat and delicate. For
in this case too he stays as close as he can to Mark’s wording and
reduces the alteration to a minimum. First he alters the wording of

The Gospels: Fact, Fiction or What? 21

the man’s initial question by moving the word ‘good’ from the address
and by putting it as the object of the sentence —

Mark - ‘Good teacher, what mustI do...’
Matt. — ‘Teacher, what good deed mustI do...’

That is enough to resolve the potential problem posed by Mark. But,
of course, that initial alteration means that Jesus’ reply in Mark’s
version makes less sense. So a second modification is required. Here
too Matthew stays as close as he can to Mark’s wording. The first
sentence of Jesus’ reply causes little difficulty, even if Matthew’s
version seems rather more stilted.

Mark — ‘Why do you call me good?’
Matt. — ‘Why do you ask me about what is good?’

Jesus’ second sentence according to Mark would appear to be less
relevant to Matthew’s version, since it was responding directly to the
Markan address, ‘Good teacher’. Matthew indeed might well have
omitted it altogether, since it made less sense in his revised version.
But evidently in this case too he wanted to stay as close as possible
to the traditional wording of the opening dialogue. So he keeps his
modification to a minimum and retains the words of Jesus, despite
their irrelevance and lack of coherency in his form of the story.

Mark — ‘No one is good but God alone’;
Matt. - ‘One there is who is good’.

When all these factors are taken into consideration, the case for
seeing here a revision of Mark’s account by Matthew seems to be
overwhelming. Whereas it must be judged far less likely that Mark’s
version was formed as a modification of Matthew. The awkwardness
of Matthew’s version is stylistic and most obviously to be explained
as an attempt to deal with the theological awkwardness of Mark’s
version. It is less likely that Mark introduced the theological problem
as a way of dealing with the awkwardness of Matthew’s style. Least
likely of all is it that there are two different incidents recalled here or
that the opening exchange in the one incident included both versions!

More important for our present purpose is the confirmation this
example provides for the main claim being made in this chapter. On
the one hand we see that the central point of the exchange between
the man and Jesus is left unaffected. In both cases the man asks what
he needs to do to inherit or have eternal life. It is only what we might
call the sub-plot (the play on the word ‘good’) which is affected by
Matthew's modification of Mark. Moreover, Matthew’s concern to
Stay as close as possible to Mark’s wording is impressive. There is no
evidence whatsoever here of a cavalier attitude to the memory of
Jesus’ words or of a willingness to play fast and loose with the

22 The Evidence for Jesus

tradition. On the other hand, the fact remains that Matthew did alter
Mark’s wording. Evidently Matthew did feel free to modify the detail
of the tradition and did not see his task as that of recording word.and
action with meticulous accuracy. Here again, then, the solid core of
historical information is clear. But the interpretative use of it no less
so.

Different versions

A final set of examples shows that traditions stemming from Jesus
were used, and so remembered, in different versions. We may itemize
here some of the best known of the traditions of Jesus’ teaching.
First, the Beatitudes.

THE BEATITUDES

Matt. 5.3-12 Luke 6.20-23
3 ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit,

for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
+ ‘Blessed are those who mourn,

for they shall be comforted.
5 ‘Blessed are the meek,

for they shall inherit the earth.

20 ‘Blessed are you poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.

fees

eS

for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.
7 ‘Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.
8 ‘Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called sons of God.
10 ‘Blessed are those who are persecuted
for righteousness’ sake,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

for you shall be satisfied.

‘Blessed are you that weep now,
for you shall laugh.

"Blessed are you when men

TT revile you
and persecute you and utter all kinds of
evil against you falsely on my account.

~B Rejoice and be glad, for your reward

is great in heaven, for so men persecuted
ihe prophets who were before you.

22 ‘Blessed are you when men hate you,
and when they exclude you and revile you
and cast out your name as evil, on
account of the Son of man!
~B Rejoice in that day, and leap for
joy, for behold, your reward is great in

heaven; for so their fathers did to the

prophets.”

As the underlining and bold type makes clear, what we have here is
two different collections of Jesus’ beatitudes.

The Gospels: Fact, Fiction or What? 3

On the one hand they include the same individual beatitudes, even
if again in different versions. The first beatitude in each case obviously
derives from the same original. Matthew’s second beatitude (v. 4) is
a variant version of Luke’s third (v. 21b) — different wording, but the
same basic contrast in view. Matthew’s fourth beatitude (v. 6) is
clearly a version of Luke's second (v. 21a). And the final beatitude
in each case (Matt. verse 11; Luke verse 22) was obviously drawn
from the same original template, as also the last sentence
(‘Rejoice . . .’) in each case.

On the other hand, Matthew’s version has a further five beatitudes.
And if we read on following Luke's account we will see that in the
next three verses he has included four ‘woes’ which exactly match the
four ‘blessings’ (Luke 6.24-26).

The most obvious explanation is that both Matthew and Luke are
drawing on what had originally been a single collection of (some of)
Jesus’ beatitudes. But in the course of transmission, either by the
evangelists themselves or by their sources before them, this single
collection has been elaborated. A certain amount of interpretation
has been included to bring out a particular point (e.g. Matt. 5.6).
And other material has been drawn in from elsewhere — different
material in each case, so that what in fact developed were two
different collections and versions of Jesus’ words.

A second example is the even better known Lord’s Prayer.

THE LORD’S PRAYER

Matt. 6.9-15 Mark 11.25-26 Luke 11.2~4

9 ‘Pray then like this:

Our Father who art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done
On earth as it is in heaven.
" Give us this day our daily
bread;s
2 And forgive us our debts,
As we also have forgiven our
debtors;
3 And lead us not into temp-
tation, OS
But deliver us from evilt."

2 And he said to them, ‘When
you pray, say:
‘Father,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.

3 Give us each day our daily
bread;* To

4 and forgive us our sins,

for we ourselves forgive every-

one who is indebted to us;

and lead_us_ not into temp
tation.’

24 The Evidence for Jesus

“For if you forgive men % ‘And whenever you stand
their trespasses, your heavenly praying, forgive, if you have
Father also will forgive you; anything against any one, so
5 but if you do not forgive that your Father also who is
men their trespasses,” neither in heaven may forgive you your
will your Father forgive your trespasses.’¥
trespasses.’

+ Or, our bread for the morrow. ‘Or, the evilone. «text: S B D ) it vg bo; for thine
is the kingdom and the power and the glory, for ever Amen. W © $ K sy? sa
Didache. ¥ text: B W © K sy sa bo; omit: their trespasses: S D A vg sy? bo
Augustine. ~ téxt: S B W sy‘ sa bo; add verse 26: ‘But if an do not forgive, neither will
your Father who is in heaven forgive your trespasses’: A C D © ) K it vg sy? Cyprian.

Once again the underlining indicates clearly that we are dealing with
the same prayer. But notice the differences.

On the one hand, Luke’s version is significantly briefer. The

opening address of Matthew is longer. And there are two extra
petitions — the third (‘Thy will be done ...’), and the sixth (‘But
deliver us from evil’). On the other hand, Luke’s has become more
clearly a prayer for regular use — ‘Give us each day our daily bread’
(v. 3).
The explanation of these differences seems to be straightforward.
In both cases we are probably witnessing the result of liturgical usage.
Hence the longer, more sonorous opening of Matthew — much easier
for a congregation to say together than Luke’s abrupt, ‘Father’. Hence
too the addition of the third and last petition, which have the effect
of making the whole more balanced, and again more easily recited
in unison. This is just the sort of ‘polishing’ which we would expect
to find as a result of sustained usage in congregational worship. Luke’s
version shows how regular usage shaped the prayer in other congre-
gations of the earliest church.

Furthermore, we should note that the process of liturgical shaping
continued after Matthew and Luke had written their Gospels. As we
can see from the line marked out in the footnotes of the text repro-
duced above, it was only later that the now familiar ending was added
to the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew’s version — ‘For thine is the kingdom
and the power and the glory, for ever. Amen’.

In other words, we can say that Luke’s and particularly Matthew’s
versions have caught and crystallized the tradition of the Lord’s
Prayer at particular points in its earliest liturgical development. The
prayer is indisputably the prayer which Jesus taught his disciples. But
he taught them to use it, not simply to remember it as a word taught
them in the past. And in using it their usage shaped it and developed
it into still more usable forms. Clearly there is nothing irresponsible
here. But clearly too the concern of the evangelists goes beyond

The Gospels: Fact, Fiction or What?

the straightforward reproduction and repetition of the precise words

taught them by Jesus.

25

A final example is the equally well known, and in Christian history,
even more important tradition of the words of institution at the Last

Supper.

THE INSTITUTION OF THE LORD’S SUPPER

Matt. 26.26-29

See below, v. 29

2 Now as they were eating,

Jesus took bread, and blessed,

and broke it, and gave it to
the Lisciples and said, “Take,

eat; this is my body.’

27 And he took a cup, and when
he had given thanks he gave it
to_them, saying, ‘Drink of it,
all of you; 78 for this is my it.
blood of the’ covenant, which
is poured out for many for the
forgiveness of sins. 1_tell
you I shall not drink “again,
of this fruit of__the_vine_un- 9}
til_that_day when I drink_it
new with you in my Father's

kingdom.’*

the vine _un- al

Mark 14.22-25

See below, v. 25

2 And as they were eating,
he_took bread, and blessed,
and broke it, and gave it to
them and said, ‘Take;

this is my body.’
3 And he took a cup, and when

he had given thanks he gave it
‘2 them, and they all drank of

WAnd he said to ie
me is my blood of the" co

enant, which is poured out a
many. Truly, I say_ to

om I shall not drink again
the_fruit_of_the vine_un-
til_that_day when I drink it
new in the kingdom of God."*

Luke 22.17-23

17 And he took a cup, and when
he had given thanks he said,
‘Take this, and divide
it among yourselves; '8 for
I tell_you that from now on
I shall not drink of the fruit
of the vine until the kingdom
of God comes.’
19 And

he took bread, and when he had
given thanks he broke it and

ave it to them, sying,

"This is my body which
is given for you. Do this in re-
membrance of me.'® And
likewise the cup after supper,
saying, ‘This cup which is
- poured out for you is the new
covenant in my blood’. *

* I Corinthians 11.23—25: 3 For I received of the Lord what I also eran to you, that

the Lord Jesus on the ni apne when he was betrayed took bread, * and when he

thanks, he broke it, an

d given

said, ‘This is my body which is broken for you. Do this in

remembrance of me.’ % In the same way also the cup, igs Supper, saying, a cup is the
rance of

new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as aa it, in
CW 9) 6 K it (some M

‘text: PSSA

in rememb: me.’

sa bo; omit, which is given for you

through verse 20: D it (some MSS); verses 19, 8: sy‘; verses 19, 20: sy?; verses 19,
Fat (after supper), Uf 17, 20b (This b food of mine is the new convenant : sy*. * text: P37 S B

O; add, new: A W ) o K it vg sy syp sao. ‘text: SBCD © sa bo; add, new:
AX 6 K it vg sy* sy? sa.

Here the matter is rather complex - the complexity probably
reflecting the different ways in which these words of Jesus were used
in the practice of the Lord’s Supper in the earliest churches. I will
confine myself to the main features of the text.

What we seem to have here is basically two versions, two different

26 The Evidence for Jesus

versions of the words used by Jesus at the Last Supper. One is the
version of Mark, in which he is followed by Matthew; we will call it
MM. The other is the version common to Luke and Paul — as we
have it in I Cor. 11, and reproduced in the footnote to the text; we
will call it L/P. Both versions are in agreement as to the substance
of what Jesus said, but both the word over the bread and the word
over the cup have rather striking differences.
Consider first the word over the bread:

MM - ‘Take; this is my body’;
LP - ‘This is my body which is broken/given for you.
Do this in remembrance of me.’

It would appear that the common core of Jesus’ words (‘This is my
body’) was remembered or was elaborated in the course of repeated
use in different ways — both quite probably again reflecting liturgical
usage. In the tradition known to Mark the congregation is encouraged
to participate by means of the initial command, ‘Take’. In the
tradition used by Paul and Luke the same encouragement comes in
the command to repeat the actions of the Last Supper ‘in remem-
brance of me’. Unlike M/M, the L/P version also has the phrase
‘which is broken/given for you’. Either the M/M version did not
consider it necessary to reproduce this explanatory phrase of Jesus,
or, more likely, the phrase has been added as an interpretative expan-
sion to bring out the meaning which was always implicit anyway in
the shorter formula.

With the second word over the cup/wine, the differences are even
great.
MM - ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for
many’;
L/P — ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood.’

Individual authors, or the tradition on which they drew, have included
the same sort of interpretative addition or liturgical elaboration:
Matthew —~ ‘for the forgiveness of sins’; Paul — ‘Do this, as often as
you drink it, in remembrance of me’. Moreover, Luke also has more
or less the same M/M phrase - ‘which is poured out for you’. But
the main difference is that the M/M version focusses on the blood,
whereas L/P focusses on the covenant. The discussion as to which is
closer to the original word of Jesus is too complex to go into here.
But the sort of argument which weighs with many scholars is the
consideration that ‘This is my blood’ makes a closer parallel form to
‘This is my body’, and presumably reflects a stage in the development
of the Lord’s Supper when both the bread and the wine had become
a separate action at the end of the meal, with the two words being

The Gospels: Fact, Fiction or What? 27

said in close conjunction — whereas originally they would have been
uttered at different points in the course of a meal (cf. L/P — the cup
came ‘after supper’).

Here again we are pointed to a conclusion which substantiates our
original ‘Yes and No’ answer to the opening question. On the one
hand, it is clear that the meaning and substance of the words originally
uttered by Jesus have been preserved and faithfully transmitted. Even
on the strictest grounds of historical scholarship it must be judged
highly likely that Jesus originated the ritual acts of sharing bread and
wine as representing his body and blood which Christians practise to
this day. On the other hand, it is equally clear that the meaning and
substance of Jesus’ words were counted more important than any
verbal accuracy in transmission. Evidently such differences as we
have noted in the three examples above caused no problem for the
first Christians. For them the words of Jesus were not the limbs of a
dead tradition stiffened and fixed by rigor mortis, to be conveyed
from place to place like much revered relics, but the voice of a living
tradition, which grew as living things do, and spoke with different
tone and force to the different situations in which they were recalled
and treasured.

Conclusions

So, to conclude, has New Testament scholarship undermined the
historical value of the Gospels? We have tried to look at the Gospels
as scholars do. That is, to look at the Gospels as they are. To be
sure, we have looked at only a few examples. We could have chosen
more of the same kind, or other examples to illustrate other features.
And much of the material is more complex than the relatively straight-
forward cases reviewed above. But hopefully these examples are
enough to demonstrate the force of our original answer. Has New
Testament scholarship undermined the historical value of the
Gospels? Yes and No!

Yes! — but only for the person who comes to the Gospels with
expectations they were not designed to fulfil. Whoever looks for
chronological accounts, detailed conciseness in every episode
recorded, pedantic precision in reproducing Jesus’ teaching as given,
word for word, and such like, will be disappointed. But not because
of anything scholars have said or done. Rather because the evangelists
themselves were not concerned with such matters. The fault here, if
fault there be, lies not in the scholars or in their findings, but in the
false expectations with which so many have come to the Gospels.
The failure, if failure there be, is failure to take the Gospels as they

28 The Evidence for Jesus

are, on their own terms, the failure to recognize their own emphases
and priorities and concerns.

No! - because all these traditions of which we have given examples
go back to Jesus and his ministry. All are firmly rooted in the earliest
memories of his mission. In conveying the traditions of Jesus’ words
and deeds the evangelists were concerned to present the tradition in
ways that spoke most powerfully to their readers. So while it is ever
the first memories of Jesus which they retell, they do so in words
often shaped by the circumstances and needs for which they were
retold.

In short, far from accusing New Testament scholarship of under-
mining our common faith, we should be the more grateful to them.
For in drawing our attention to the actual features of the Gospels
themselves they have helped us the better to understand the purposes
and priorities of the Gospel writers and so helped us also to hear
their message more clearly.

The Gospels: Fact, Fiction or What? 29

Note on Professor Wells’ View

Professor G. A. Wells, Professor of German in the University of
London, has concluded from Paul’s virtual silence regarding Jesus’
own ministry and teaching that the Jesus of the Gospels never existed.
Jesus: the Evidence rightly noted that his view is shared by almost no
other scholar, but still gave the view some prominence. Suffice it to
underline the fact that the relative silence of Paul regarding ‘the
historical Jesus’ is well known to all scholars working in this area.
None that I know of shares Professor Wells’ opinion. Other expla-
nations are much more plausible. For example, that Paul was so
absorbed by his faith in the risen and exalted Christ that he had little
need or occasion to refer back to Jesus’ earthly ministry apart from
the central episode of his death and resurrection. Or, that the
traditions about Jesus were sufficiently familiar to his congregations
and non-controversial, so that he need do no more than allude to
them, as he quite often does.

The alternative thesis that within thirty years there had evolved
such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-
existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is
just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative
hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there
was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels
attribute to him. The fact of Christianity’s beginnings and the
character of its earliest tradition is such that we could only deny the
existence of Jesus by hypothesizing the existence of some other figure
who was a sufficient cause of Christianity’s beginnings — another figure
who on careful reflection would probably come out very like Jesus!

2 Did Jesus Claim to be the
Son of God?

The second major claim made by the programme Jesus: the Evidence,
which many Christians found disturbing, relates directly to Jesus
himself. ‘New Testament scholarship has steadily eroded confidence
... in the image of Jesus as the Son of God.’ Or, in the narrower
form which makes it possible for us to handle the topic within a single
chapter, Has New Testament scholarship shown it to be improbable
that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God? The churches could live
with some questioning of the historical value of the New Testament.
But questions posed about Jesus himself come closer to the nerve
centre of the Christian faith. So here too we must ask, Is the claim
correct? Is Christian belief in Jesus as Son of God rooted in what we
know of Jesus in the Gospels? Or is it rather undermined by what
we can know of Jesus’ own self-understanding? Did Jesus himself lay
claim to that title (Son of God) by which he has been consistently
known since then?

Here too, I am afraid, the answer is Yes and No! New Testament
scholarship has shown it to be probabje that Jesus thought of himself
as God's son, or, if you will, God’s Son (though it would be unwise
to let the discussion turn upon the use Or non-use of a capital letter).
So, in that sense, Yes! But it has also shown that the full Christian
claim (Jesus is the Son of God) is almost certainly the product of
some development over the first decades of the new movement. So,
in that sense, No! Once more, let me explain.

The Jesus of John’s Gospel

Did Jesus claim to be the Son of God? At first sight, the answer is a
straightforward and unequivocal Yes! In John’s Gospel Jesus speaks
repeatedly of God as Father and of himself as Son. Indeed, some
people express surprise that this question should ever be asked in the
first place. The answer is so obvious. And almost always they have
the presentation of Jesus in John’s Gospel in mind. Consider, for
example, the following passage from John 5.16-27:

Did Jesus Claim to be the Son of God? 31

This was why the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did this [healed
the paralysed man] on the sabbath. But Jesus answered them, ‘My
Father is working still, and I am working’. This was why the Jews
sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath
but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing
of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever
he does, that the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son, and
shows him ail that he himself is doing; and greater works than these
will he show him, that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the
dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.
The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that
all my honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He who does
not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him. Truly,
truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent
me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed
from death to life. Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and
now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of Gad, and thase
who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has
granted the Son also to have life in himself, and has given him authority
to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man. ...

So the answer seems obvious. Of course Jesus claimed to be the
Son of God. John’s Gospel is clear on the point.

There is, however, a problem here — the question of whether we
can use John’s Gospel as direct testimony to Jesus’ own teaching. It is
a problem posed not so much by New Testament scholars as by John’s
Gospel itself. The problem was not invented by modern scholarship;
it was rather discovered by modern scholarship. And since John’s
Gospel is such a crucial factor in the question asked by this chapter,
we must go into it with some care before we can begin to understand
why a Yes and No answer has to be given.

There is another reason why it is worth pausing at this point to
look more closely at John’s Gospel. For on the question of the
historical value of John’s Gospel there is probably one of the biggest
gulfs between New Testament scholarship and ‘the man in the pew’.
In preaching and devotional Bible study the assumption is regularly
made that all four Gospels are straightforward historical sources for
information about what Jesus did or said. Whereas scholars have
almost always found themselves pushed to the conclusion that John’s
Gospel reflects much more of the early churches’ understanding of
Jesus than of Jesus’ own self-understanding. There is Christian
interpretation in the other three Gospels, as we have seen, but in
John’s Gospel there is much more of it. Again, evangelical or apolo-
getic assertions regarding the claims of Christ will often quote the
claims made by Jesus himself (in the Gospel of John) with the alterna-

32 The Evidence for Jesus

tives posed, ‘Mad, bad or God’, without allowing that there may be
a further alternative (viz. Christian claims about Jesus rather than
Jesus’ claims about himself). Or again, ecumenical pronouncements
will frequently cite Jesus’ prayer, ‘that they may all be one’ (John
17.21), without ever raising the question as to whether the prayer
was formulated by Jesus himself or at a later date.

How then are we to understand John’s Gospel? The issue here is
obviously a peculiarly sensitive one. And the answer to it will have
wide repercussions on our use of John’s Gospel at all these different
levels (preaching, evangelism, etc.). It is important therefore that the
Christian community at large should recognize how scholars see
John’s Gospel and why they see it that way. That is our task here.
Once again it is too big a task for a single chapter, so the presentation
has to be illustrative rather than comprehensive.

The Problem of John's Gospel

How are we to understand the Gospel of John? Is it a source of
historical information about Jesus’ teaching and self-understanding?
The issue arises because John’s Gospel is so obviously different from
the other three Gospels ~ particularly in its representation of Jesus’
teaching. The point can be illustrated in a simple table.

Jesus’ teaching Synoptic Gospels John’s Gospel
Style epigrams, parables long, often involved
discourses
Content kingdom of God Jesus himself (I ams)
hardly anything about hardly anything about the
himself kingdom

Jesus’ teaching style

For examples of Jesus’ teaching style in the Synoptics we need only
think of the sort of material grouped by Matthew in the Sermon on
the Mount.

You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its
saltness by restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be
thrown out and trodden under foot by men.

You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid.
Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand,
and it gives light to all in the house. Let your light so shine before
men, that they may See your good works and give glory to your Father
who is in heaven (Matt. 5.13-16).

Did Jesus Claim to be the Son of God? 33

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust
consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves
treasure in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where
thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there
will your heart be also.

The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is sound, your whole
body will be full of light; but if your eye is not sound, your whole body
will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great
is the darkness!

No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and
love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.
You cannot serve God and mammon (Matt. 6.19-24).

For Jesus’ epigrammatic style we may consider, for example, the
collection of proverbial sayings which we find in Mark 4, and which
must have been quite popular since they appear elsewhere in different
contexts.

Is a lamp brought in to be put under a bushel, or under a bed, and
not on a stand? (Mark 4.21 = Matt. 5.15 = Luke 8.16 = Luke 11.33 =
Gospel of Thomas 33).

For there is nothing hid, except to be made manifest; nor is anything
secret, except to come to light (Mark 4.22 = Matt. 10.26 = Luke
8.17 = Luke 12.2 = Gospel of Thomas 5 and 6).

If any man has ears to hear, let him hear (Mark 4.23 = Mark 4.9 =
Mark 7.16(7) = Gospel of Thomas 8, 21, 63, 65 and 96).
Take heed what you hear; the measure you give will be the measure

you get, and still more will be given you (Mark 4.24 = Luke 8.18 and
6.38 = Matt. 7.2).

For to him who has will more be given; and from him who has not,
even what he has will be taken away (Mark 4.25 = Matt. 13.12 =
Luke 8.18 = Luke 19.26 = Gospel of Thomas 41).

For parables we need only refer to such justly famous stories as
the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, the Sower and his Seed, the
Two Debtors, and so on (Luke 10.29-35; Luke 15.11~32; Mark 4.3-8;
Matt. 18.23~34), well known to generations of Sunday School and
day school children. All of them are characterized by the skill of a
brilliant story teller. They sketch a vivid picture in a few words; they
utilize the homely and familiar with powerful effect; there is in each
in greater or less degree a dramatic surge which carries the listener
forward, even in mini-parables like the Treasure in the Field and the
Pearl of Great Price (Matt. 13.44-46). Jesus understood well the
fascination which people find in the dramas and unexpected turns of
everyday life.

Contrast the teaching style of John’s Gospel.

34 The Evidence for Jesus

Jesus answered them, ‘Do not murmur among yourselves. No one can
come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise
him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, “And they shall
all be taught by God”. Everyone who has heard and learned from the
Father comes to me. Not that any one has seen the Father except him
who is from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you,
he who believes has eternal life. I anf the bread of life. Your fathers
ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which
comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am
the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this
bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the
life of the world is my flesh (John 6.43-51).

I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch of
mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does
bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. You are already
made clean by the word which I have spoken to you. Abide in me,
and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides
in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine,
you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that
bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If a man does
not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the
branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. If you abide
in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall
be done for you. By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much
fruit, and so prove to be my disciples. As the Father has loved me, so
have I loved you; abide in my love. If you keep my commandments,
you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s command-
ments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that
my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full (John 15.1-11).

Clearly, this is a different world from the Synoptics. The ideas and
their elaboration are much more abstruse. There is a similarity in the
homely imagery used ~ bread, vine — but the way that imagery is used
is quite markedly removed from the epigrams and parables which
characterize the Synoptics.

The content of Jesus’ teaching

As to the difference in content between the Synoptics and John, it
is almost sufficient to present the statistical facts for the number of
times the word ‘kingdom’ appears on Jesus’ lips and the number of
times he uses ‘T’ in self-reference.

Matthew Mark Luke John

Kingdom 47 18 37 5
I 17 9 10 118

Did Jesus Claim to be the Son of God? 35

When we read the Synoptic Gospels the impression is strong that
‘kingdom’ was a key word in Jesus’ preaching and teaching, particu-
larly ‘the kingdom of God’. For example, Mark deliberately begins
his account of Jesus’ proclamation with what he evidently intended
as a summary statement characterizing Jesus’ ministry as a whole —
‘After John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the
gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom
of God is at hand. . .” ’ (Mark 1.14-15). According to Matthew and
Luke, when Jesus extended his mission by sending out his disciples
in turn, it is the same message which he gave them — ‘The kingdom
of God is at hand’ (Matt. 10.7; Luke 10.9). And the largest single
group of parables are those which begin, ‘The kingdom of God/
heaven is like. . .’.

Contrast John’s Gospel, where Jesus is never shown as preaching
or proclaiming the kingdom; and the five occurrences of the phrase
are confined to two passages — in the conversations with Nicodemus
(John 3.3, 5) and with Pilate (John 18.36). And in the latter case the
talk is exceptionally of ‘my kingdom’ rather than ‘the kingdom of
God’.

The contrast between the Synoptics and John seems to be less
striking in the case of the ‘I’-statements. But in fact almost all the
Synoptic references are of a conventional kind, even where the ‘I’ is
emphatic. Whereas the Johannine usage is full of profound and often
staggering claims. Particularly the seven well known ‘I am’ sayings:
‘I am the bread of life’ (6.35); ‘I am the light of the world’ (8.12); ‘I
am the door of the sheep’ (10.7); ‘I am the good shepherd’ (10.11);
‘I am the resurrection and the life’ (11.25); ‘I am the way, and the
truth and the life’ (14.6); ‘I am the true vine’ (15.1); and the most
striking ‘I am’ saying of all — ‘Before Abraham was, I am’ (8.58).

The contrast between the Synoptics and John at both these points
is therefore not merely statistical. There is a qualitative contrast too.
This again is not something imposed upon or read in by New Testa-
ment scholars. The contrast is there, in the Gospels themselves.
New Testament scholarship simply tries to explain what is there. The
contrast is not to be exaggerated or overdramatized. But it is there.
How is it to be explained?

Explanations for the Differences between the Synoptics and John

There are, broadly speaking, three possible explanations for the rather
Striking contrasts between the Synoptic Gospels and John’s Gospel.

36 The Evidence for Jesus
Wholly historical

One explanation attempts to argue for a high degree of historicity.
On this view, it is not necessary to sacrifice belief in the historical
value of John’s Gospel in order to maintain the historical value of
the Synoptics. They are all trustworthy witnesses of what Jesus actu-
ally said and did. The reason for the differences between them in
style and content is simply that Jesus used different styles and
different material for different audiences. In particular, John’s Gospel
gives us the typical style and content of Jesus’ private teaching to
his disciples, or, an alternative view, the style and content of his
controversies with the Jerusalem authorities. So the argument would
run.

The difficulty with this suggestion is twofold. (a) The fact is that it
simply does not work. The style of Jesus’ teaching is constant
throughout John’s Gospel. It is the same for all audiences. Whether
it is to the Jewish leader (Nicodemus) in Jerusalem (ch. 3), or to the
women in Samaria (4), or to the crowd in Galilee (6), or to the
Jerusalem authorities (8), or to the disciples (14-16), or indeed to
God in prayer (17), the style is the same. And as it is consistent
throughout John, so it is consistently different from the Synoptics. The
difference is not between geographical settings, public and private,
preaching and teaching. The difference is between the Gospels them-
selves. This suggested explanation fails to provide an explanation.

(b) As for content, what are we to make of the fact that this very
powerful self-testimony of Jesus runs throughout John’s Gospel and
yet lacks any real parallel in the Synoptics? In particular, what about
these profound ‘I am’ claims? If they were part of the original words
of Jesus himself, how could it be that only John has picked them up,
and none of the others? Call it scholarly scepticism if you will, but I
must confess that I find it almost incredible that such sayings should
have been neglected had they been known as a feature of Jesus’
teaching. If the ‘I ams’ had been part of the original tradition, it is
very hard indeed to explain why none of the other three evangelists
made use of them. Most scholars therefore find themselves forced by
the evidence to look for another explanation.

Wholly theological

At the opposite end of the spectrum of possible explanations is the
view that John’s Gospel has no historical value at all. An understand-
able reaction against the unreality of the first explanation is to argue
that John’s Gospel is the complete creation of John the evangelist
himself, from start to finish — theological, or spiritual in character,

Did Jesus Claim to be the Son of God? 37

and not historical. This line of argument was quite popular among
many scholars a hundred years ago. But it is a good deal less popular
today.

(a) It would now be widely acknowledged that John’s Gospel is
valuable as a historical source, at least to the extent that it preserves
good historical tradition - in some cases known to the Synoptics, in
other cases not known or not used by the Synoptics. For example,
John provides some very important information about the very earl-
iest days of Jesus’ ministry. The Synoptic Gospels begin their account
of Jesus’ ministry after the Baptist has been removed from the scene
(Matt. 4.12; Mark 1.14). But the abruptness with which Jesus
summons his first disciples (Matt. 4.18-22; Mark 1.16-20) has always
been something of a puzzle. John’s Gospel helps to fill out the picture.
For John’s Gospel shows that Jesus’ earliest period of ministry over-
lapped with that of the Baptist (John 3.22-23) and that there were
earlier encounters between Jesus and his first disciples during that
period (John 1.35-42).

As another example we may simply refer to the various
geographical notes which are scattered within the Gospel of John,
thirteen of them not mentioned in the Svnoptics. Such references as
to ‘Aenon near Salim’ (John 3.23) or to the pool of Siloam (9.7),
indicate a pretty fair and confident knowledge, which, when we can
check it, proves to be accurate. The best example of this is the
reference to the pool in Jerusalem with five porticoes, the pool of
Bethzatha or Bethesda (5.2). For centuries the site of this pool had
been forgotten, and the question posed as to whether the odd number
of five colonnades was symbolical rather than historical. But in a
series of excavations from 1914 to 1938 the pool itself was redis-
covered within Jerusalem, and the discovery confirmed that there
must indeed have been five porticoes, since it was in fact a double
pool, or two pools, with the fifth colonnade running between them.
With such historical accuracy of geographical detail, it is hardly plaus-
ible to argue that the whole Gospel is the creation of the evangelist’s
imagination. At the very least his material must be firmly rooted in
good historical tradition, that is, in the testimony or account of eye-
witnesses,

(b) It is of course with the teaching of Jesus within John’s Gospel
that the issue we are now discussing comes to its sharpest focus. Here
too it has become steadily clearer during the last few decades that
these long and involved discourses cannot be treated simply as
Creations of the evangelist. Again and again it can be shown with a
high degree of probability that they are dependent in some measure
at least on traditions which go back to Jesus. In fact, many of the

38 The Evidence for Jesus

discourses in John’s Gospel seem to grow out of elements of Jesus’
teaching as recorded in the other three Gospels.

A good example of this is Jesus’ teaching on the new birth to
Nicodemus in John 3.1-15. The central challenge posed by Jesus is
closely paralleled by a saying which appears in slightly different
versions in Matt. 18.3, Mark 10.15 and Luke 18.17.

John ~ Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew,
he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Matt. - Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become
like children you will never enter the kingdom of
heaven.
Mark/Luke - Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive

the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.

What is particularly interesting here is that this is the only passage in
John where Jesus speaks of the kingdom of God in language
approaching that of the Synoptics. John 3 seems to be an elaboration
of that basic claim made by Jesus.

Another example is John 6.51-58, which seems to be a variation
or reflection on the words of the Last Supper: ‘This is my body (which
is given for you) . . . This is my blood of the covenant poured out
for many. . .’ (Mark 14.22-24; Luke 22.19~20). In John 6 Jesus says:

. . . the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh . . .
Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you
have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has
eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food
indeed, and my blood is drink indeed .. .

For a final example we may turn to John 10. The presentation of
Jesus as the good shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep and
who has other sheep which he must bring into the fold makes a
powerful impression (John 10, particularly verses 11 and 16). The
basic theme is close to that of the parable of the lost sheep (Luke
15.4-6), and John 10 looks very much like a developed variation of
that parable. In this case the development consists in the wholly
natural identification of Jesus himself with the shepherd of Jesus’
parable. John 10, in other words, can be most simply understood as
a Christian retelling of Jesus’ own parable in the light of Jesus’ death
and resurrection.

In short, the second alternative explanation of the differences
between the Synoptics and John will not work either. To argue that
John’s presentation of Jesus’ ministry and teaching is wholly the
product of John’s creative imagination, purely theological and not at

Did Jesus Claim to be the Son of. God? 39

all historical, is to fly in the face of the evidence. There are too many
indications that John’s portrayal is in touch with or draws upon good
historical information about what Jesus did and said.

Theological elaboration of history

The third position comes somewhere in the middle between the
other two. It tries to take account of the evidence which tells against
both of the more extreme positions. With reference to Jesus’ teaching,
where the issue is at its sharpest for us, it concludes that the discourses
of Jesus are neither straightforward history nor straight theology, but
a combination of both history and theology. The best explanation of
these two sets of different features is that the discourses are medi-
tations or indeed sermons on typical episodes in Jesus’ ministry and
on particular teachings of Jesus. The sort of considerations which have
pushed scholars in this direction can be easily documented.

(a) The discourses of John’s Gospel are often constructed round
themes and grow out of particular episodes. This is simply an elabor-
ation of the point made above (p. 38). In some cases there is more
than one theme, and the use of the dialogue form sometimes makes
the development of the theme(s) less clear to a first reading now.
The most obvious examples of a single theme discourse are in John
4 (on the water of life - vv.7-15) and John 6 (on the bread of life -
vv.25-58). For examples of the way in which the discourse or theme
grows out of particular incidents we may consider chapter 5 (on Jesus’
proper work, growing out of the healing on the sabbath) and chapter
9 (on true sight and blindness). The bread of life discourse obviously
grows out of the feeding of the 5,000 (John 6).

John 6.25-58 indeed is one of the best examples we possess of a
Jewish sermon (or midrash) for that period. To print it all would
require too much space, but it is well worth pausing at this point to
read it in a modern translation (vv.43-51 are reproduced above on
p. 34). Anyone who does read it as a whole will notice how the
discourse is constructed round a basic contrast (not material bread,
but the true bread), in which the second half of the contrast is
elaborated and developed in what seems like a circular motion, where
the argument keeps returning to the same point and restating it
afresh. This elaboration itself has two interacting themes. The main
theme identifies the one who gives the true bread as the Father (not
Moses), and the true bread as Jesus himself. It is the latter strand on
which much of the development concentrates as the full implications
of what Jesus is saying are brought home. The counterpoint is formed
by the corollary theme of eating the bread: eating the one kind of
bread resulted in death; eating the other results in life.

40 The Evidence for Jesus

The complete theme is first announced in v.27: ‘Do not labour for
the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal
life.’ This allusion to food which perishes is elaborated by reference
to the manna of the wilderness period (v.31) which the fathers ate
and died (vv.49,58). The key text on which the positive side of the
contrast is developed is v.31: ‘He gave them bread froin heaven to
eat’ (a combination of Exodus 16.4, 15 and Ps. 78.24). This in fact
is the text for the sermon and it is the exposition of this text which
forms the main thrust of the sermon. He who gives the bread is God,
the Father (vv.32,44,58). The bread which is given is Jesus himself,
the true bread (v.32), the bread of life (vv.35,48) which has come
down from heaven (vv.41,51), the bread given for the life of the
world (v.51), Jesus’ flesh (vv.51,53~56). To eat this bread (that is, to
believe in this Jesus) is the means to eternal life (vv.35,47,50-51,
54,57-58). Verse 58 provides the fitting conclusion in which the
central themes are rounded off in an appropriate summary: ‘This is
the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate
and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever’ (6.58).

The whole passage gives the very strong impression of a very
skilfully constructed sermon. Indeed, it is not difficult to visualize one
of the early church groups with whom the evangelist worshipped
listening in rapt attention to just such an exposition of the significance
of Jesus, their Lord and Saviour, as they prepared to share together
the bread and wine, his flesh and blood.

(b) The style of John’s Gospel is also the style of the letters of
John. Compare, for example, John 8.34-36, 44-47 with I John
3.4-10.

John 8 ~ Jesus answered them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone
who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not continue in the
house for ever; the son continues for ever. So if the Son makes you
free, you will be free indeed. ..’. °.. . You are of your father the.
devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer
from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because
there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own
nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But, because I tell the
truth, you do not believe me. Which of you convicts me of sin? If I
tell the truth, why do you not believe me? He who is of God hears
the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you
are not of God.’

I John 3 - Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is
lawlessness. You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him —
there is no sin. No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has
either seen him or known him. Little children, let no one deceive you.
He who does right is righteous, as he is righteous. He who commits

Did Jesus Claim to be the Son of God? 41

sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The
reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
No one born of God commits sin; for God’s nature abides in him, and
he cannot sin because he is born of God. By this it may be seen who
are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever
does not do right is not of God, nor he who does not love his brother.

The style of these two passages is clearly very much of a piece.
The teaching of John in John’s Epistle is the same as the teaching of
Jesus in John’s Gospel, apart, of course, from the considerable
amount of self-testimony in the latter. The style, in other words, is
the style of John. However much the content goes back to Jesus, it
has been passed through the medium of John’s thought and language.

By way of confirmation we need simply note that the same is true
of the teaching of John the Baptist in John’s Gospel. The character
of much of the Baptist’s message in the Fourth Gospel is far closer
to that of the Gospel and of the Johannine Epistles than to the
character of his preaching as recorded in the other three Gospels (cf.
John 3.27~30 with 3.31-36 and contrast it with Matt. 3.7-10). Where
John the Baptist and Jesus speak with such a different voice from
that recorded in the Synoptics and with the same voice which we find
to be typical of the writer(s) of John’s Gospel and Epistles, it is hard
to avoid the conclusion that it is the same voice which we are hearing
each time — the voice of John.

(c) One other strand of evidence leads most scholars to the
conclusion that John’s Gospel was not written until the last ten or
fifteen years of the first century aD. And also that the content of the
Gospel itself reflects something of these later circumstances in which
it was written. To be more precise, the discourses of the Fourth
Gospel reflect a breach between the followers of Jesus and ‘the Jews’
which did not take place till the 80s.

The evidence here is twofold. In the first place, there is the very
striking use of the phrase ‘the Jews’. In John’s Gospel it occurs
about seventy times, in contrast to the five or six occurrences in the
Synoptics. That would be somewhat surprising in itself. But what is
even more noticeable is that the phrase has become more or less a
stereotype for Jesus’ opponents, a technical term for the religious
authorities in their hostility to Jesus. What is most remarkable is the
way in which individuals, who are themselves Jews, are nevertheless
distinguished from ‘the Jews’. In 5.15 we read, ‘The man went away
and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him’. A Jew told
‘the Jews’! Similarly in 7.13: ‘for fear of the Jews no one spoke openly
of him’. Jews fear ‘the Jews’! Similarly in 9.22: the parents of the
man who had been blind ‘said this because they feared the Jews’.
Here again, Jews fear ‘the Jews’!

42 The Evidence for Jesus

This last reference leads us into the second strand of evidence. For
in 9,22 the evangelist continues —

. .. for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone should confess him
(Jesus) to be the Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue.

Here we read of an official decision reached by the Jewish authorities
in Jerusalem (‘the Jews’) to excommunicate any member of the Jewish
community who confessed Jesus as the Messiah. In other words, what
is referred to here is the complete breach between official Judaism
and Christianity. And this we know did not take place in Palestine
till after the destruction of Jerusalem in the 70s. Prior to that time
Jews who were believers in Jesus as the Messiah (Christ) were able
to continue living as Jews and attending the synagogue. There had
of course been tensions, but not over the claim that Jesus was the
Messiah. The incident over Stephen seems to have focussed chiefly
on his views regarding the temple (Acts 6-7). And the subsequent
persecution was primarily motivated by zeal for the law and hostility
to Christian unconcern over circumcision and food laws (e.g. Acts
15.1-2; Phil. 3.5-6). But within Judaism there was nothing intrinsi-
cally unacceptable or ‘heretical’ about hailing a particular individual
as ‘Messiah’. And we have no real evidence of the Christian claim
for Jesus at this point becoming unacceptable during the first fifty
years of Christianity. Whereas we do have fairly clear indications in
Jewish sources that a formal decision was taken by the surviving
Jewish authorities in Palestine in the 80s to treat the Nazarenes (that
is, those who confessed Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah) as heretics. In
other words, John 9.22 seems to reflect that very breach between
Judaism and Christianity, that testing time for Jewish Christians
when, for the first time, they had to make a final choice between
synagogue and the congregation of Jesus’ followers, between being a
Jew (as now more precisely defined) and being a Christian (cf. 12.42;
16.2).

The point is that this conflict between Jesus and ‘the Jews’ is part
of the warp and woof of so much of the Gospel (particularly the
central section, chapters 5-11). It forms an integral part of the struc-
ture of several of the discourses and dialogues. This strongly suggests
that these discourses have been formulated with that conflict in view,
that is, in the light of the growing tension between Jewish authority
and Jewish Christian which marked the last two decades of the first
century. This section of John’s Gospel in particular seems in fact to
operate or combine two different levels — the historical level of Jesus’
own ministry, when he healed the lame and the blind, and the
historical level of the Johannine congregation(s), when many of them
must have faced the agonizing choice which is so movingly portrayed

Did Jesus Claim to be the Son of God? 43

as confronting the formerly blind man and his parents in chapter 9.
To help his readers make that choice (between synagogue and church,
between being a Jew and being Christian), and to strengthen the faith
of those who had decided for Jesus the Christ against ‘the Jews’ was
probably one of John’s main reasons for writing the Gospel (cf.
20.31).

In the light of all this evidence, most scholars opt for some version
of the third alternative (theological elaboration of history). John’s
Gospel is an account of Jesus refracted through the prism of John’s
theology and literary style. And the discourses in particular are best
seen as meditations or sermons intended to draw out the significance
of what Jesus did and said.

The fact that the evangelist presents the discourses as actual
dialogues between Jesus and his audiences should not be counted
as evidence against this conclusion. John was simply doing what
generations of preachers have done since — expanding and developing
particular points regarding Jesus through the literary style of the
dialogue-discourse. Almost certainly he was not concerned with the
sort of questions which trouble some Christians today - Did Jesus
actually say this? Did he use these precise words? and so on. It was
enough that these words were proper expressions of what was true
about Jesus, of what Jesus would have said for himself, for example,
to the Jewish believers under threat from the Jewish authorities. Just
so might a preacher today retell an episode from Jesus’ life (for
example, the healing of blind Bartimaeus in Mark 10.46-52), and in
the retelling use some historical licence to construct or elaborate
various conversations within the crowd, or with Jesus. And just so
would it be improper to accuse the preacher of falsehood by ignoring
the literary vehicle he was obviously using?

In short, the Jesus of John is not to be identified in a complete way
with the Jesus who meets us in the Synoptics. The Jesus of John is
also Jesus as he was increasingly seen to be, as the understanding of
who Jesus was deepened through the decades of the first century.
John’s Gospel, we may say, is intended to present the truth about
Jesus, but not by means of a strictly historical portrayal. The Synoptic
Gospels, if you like, are more like a portrait of Jesus; John’s Gospel
is more like an impressionist painting of Jesus. Both present the real
Jesus, but in very different ways.

Jesus as the Son of God in John’s Gospel

What does all this say about Jesus’ teaching in the Fourth Gospel
regarding his divine sonship? The long digression just completed was
made necessary by the fact that John’s Gospel seems to provide the

44 The Evidence for Jesus

complete answer to our opening question. Did Jesus claim to be the
Son of God? — John’s Gospel seemed to require an unequivocal Yes.
But if now we have had to conclude that John’s Gospel was not
intended to provide a strictly historical portrayal, what does that say
about John’s presentation of Jesus as the Son of God? Is Jesus’ own
testimony as given by John part of the historical core which John has
elaborated, or part of the elaboration? Does Jesus’ talk of himself as
‘the Son’ derive from the earliest traditions of Jesus or from the
subsequent theological reflection on the significance of Jesus?

The initial answer has to be that the self-testimony of Jesus in
John’s Gospel belongs in large part at least to the enlarged and
developed picture which John paints. The point can again be
represented statistically, where the key statistic is the number of times
Jesus speaks of God as his Father

Mark Q Luke Matthew John
‘Father’ 3 4 4 31 100
‘the Father’ 1 1 2 1 73

(‘Q’ is the symbol used to denote what was probably a second source
used by Matthew and Luke - Mark’s Gospel itself being the ‘first’
source; ‘Luke’ and ‘Matthew’ denote the material peculiar to each.)
Since Mark and Q are generally regarded as the earliest of these five,
and John the latest, the most obvious deduction to be drawn from
these statistics is this: over the period spanned by Mark and John
there was a development and expansion of the tradition at this point.
The earliest churches remembered only a few occasions or utterances
in which Jesus spoke of God as his father. But in the last decades of
the first century there seems to have been a tendency to represent
this form of speech as more typical of Jesus. (In Matthew the expan-
sion often comes through the introduction of the typically Matthean
phrase, ‘my Father who is in heaven’.) And in John’s Gospel this
representation of Jesus has become a central strand for the Gospel
itself.

In other words, we cannot in fairness take John’s reported testi-
mony on this point as firm evidence of what Jesus actually said about
himself. On the evidence as we have it, it would be more accurate
to regard the claims of Jesus in John as an integral part of the
exposition of what John and his fellow Christians had found Jesus to
be. Such utterances as ‘I am the light of the world’ (John 8.12) and
‘I and the Father are one’ (John 10.30) bear testimony to John’s
experience of Jesus (during his life and since), Jesus’ witness to
himself through the Spirit, as John would no doubt want to claim

Did Jesus Claim to be the Son of God? 45

(John 15.26; 16.12-15), rather than Jesus’ witness to himself while
on earth — the truth of Jesus in retrospect rather than as expressed
by Jesus at the time.

But that is not the complete answer. For the same evidence shows
that this teaching was not invented by John. It is rather an enlarge-
ment of an element which was already present in Jesus’ teaching from
the beginning. It was important for John that the Spirit was revealing
to them ‘many things’ Jesus had not said to them while on earth,
many things which glorified Jesus (John 16.12,14). But it was also
important for John that the task of the Spirit was to remind them of
what Jesus had said while he was still with them (14.25-26). It is
likely then that the expanded teaching of Jesus about his divine
sonship is just that, expanded teaching of Jesus. Or to put it more
precisely, it is likely that this element of Jesus’ discourses too has
firm roots in the earliest memory of what Jesus had said while with
his first disciples. As in other cases the discourses seem to have grown
round particular sayings of Jesus which we know of also from the
Synoptics (p. 38), so here Jesus’ teaching on his divine sonship in
John has probably grown round the memory of things Jesus actually
did say on the subject. This deduction from within John’s Gospel itself
is confirmed by a closer study of related testimony in the Synoptics.

Jesus as God’s Son in the Synoptic Gospels

The claim that Jesus regarded himself as Son of God is not based
only on the testimony of John’s Gospel. It is also testified in the
traditions used by Matthew, Mark and Luke. In this case too we can
see something at least of the historical information on which John’s
meditations and elaborations are based.

Jesus’ own prayer

Particularly worthy of note is the testimony that Jesus addressed
God as ‘Father’ in his praying. There are several important features
here. First, it is independently attested in all five strands of the Gospel
tradition - Mark, Q (the second source of Matthew and Luke), the
material peculiar to Luke, the material peculiar to Matthew, and
John.

Mark 14.36 — Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane: ‘Abba, Father, all
things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not
what I will, but what thou wilt’.

Q = Matt. 11.25-26 = Luke 10.21 - ‘I thank thee, Father, Lord
of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the

46 The Evidence for Jesus

wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father,
for such was thy gracious will’.

Luke 23.46 — Jesus’ prayer on the cross: ‘Father, into thy hands I
commend my spirit’.

Matt. 26.42 — Jesus’ second prayer in Gethsemane: ‘My Father, if
this cannot pass unless I drink it, thy will be done’.

John 11.41 — Jesus at the tomb of Lazarus: ‘Father, I thank thee
that thou hast heard me’.

Second, the testimony is that Jesus almost always prayed in this
way. The only time it is clearly attested that Jesus did not address
God as ‘Father’ was in the experience of desolation on the cross,
when it was the opening of Ps. 22 which came to his lips - ‘My God,
my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ For the rest ‘Father’ was
evidently his usual form of address. Moreover, it was this way of
speaking to God which Jesus evidently encouraged in his disciples,
as Luke’s version of the Lord’s Prayer shows (Luke 11.2). On this
basis we can say with some confidence that it was customary for Jesus
to approach God as Father, and that this way of addressing God was
wholly characteristic of Jesus and of the manner of praying he both
practised and taught his disciples.

Third, we can use the slightness of the Synoptic testimony also in
favour of this conclusion. For it is clear from the paucity of the
testimony in the Gospels that the evangelists have not made much of
this tradition of Jesus praying to God as Father. This is true even of
the fourth evangelist, despite his considerable elaboration of the
Father/Son language apart from prayer (the one exception is John
17). Where evangelists have not developed a particular theme, it is
normally a good indication of its historicity. As we have now seen,
the Gospel writers show a fair degree of liberty in their choice of
material (what they leave out as well as put in) and in the way they
interpret and use it. So when we find a tradition which they have not
built up into a more sustained theme, we can be fairly confident that
that tradition contains a piece of historical information. They have
included it not so much to make a point of their choosing, but simply
because it belonged to the memory of Jesus’ time on earth.

All these considerations build up for the majority of scholars to
the clear and firm conclusion that as a matter of historical fact Jesus
did address God as ‘Father’ in his prayer and that this was character-
istic of his prayer.

Can we say more? The answer probably is Yes, and it turns on the
word which Jesus used for ‘Father’ in his prayer.

Did Jesus Claim to be the Son of God? 47
God as abba

The word Jesus almost certainly used was ‘Abba’. This is an
Aramaic form for the style of address used by Jesus ~ ‘Father’. It has
actually been retained in Mark’s version of the prayer in Gethsemane;
that is to say, the Aramaic word has been copied into Greek letters,
and not merely translated (Mark 14.36).

More striking still is the testimony of Paul in two of his letters that
the same form of prayer was regarded as the voice of the Spirit
speaking in prayer through the Christian. ‘When we cry, “Abba!
Father!” it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that
we are children of God’ (Rom. 8.15-16). ‘God has sent the Spirit of
his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!” ’ (Gal. 4.6). Why,
we may properly ask, should the first Christians retain this Aramaic
word rather than be content simply with its Greek equivalent? The
answer must be that the Aramaic expression itself had become very
well established in Christian prayer from the beginning and was
especially treasured by them. And if we ask Why? again, the most
obvious answer to come back is that they treasured it so much because
it was so characteristic of Jesus’ own prayer. This in fact is clearly
implied in the two passages where Paul speaks of it. For in each case
the Spirit’s crying ‘Abba! Father!’ is a clear sign for the Christians
that they are sons of God and heirs with Christ (Rom. 8.16-17; Gal.
4.7). They share in Jesus’ sonship and can be confident that this is so
because they share in Jesus’ prayer!

We can make one further deduction from this evidence. The fact
that ‘abba’ is remembered as particularly characteristic of Jesus’
prayer probably implies that it was an unusual style of prayer. Had
it been the typical style of addressing God in the prayers of the
ordinary people of Galilee or of a particular Jewish sect, it would not
have been regarded as evidence of the Christian claim to the Spirit
and to divine sonship. But since (so far as we can tell) the claim to
a share in divine sonship through the Spirit is something which marked
out the first Christians within the Judaism of the time, the evidence
which these Christians cite as proof of that claim must itself have been
distinctive. Had ‘abba’ been widely used outside Christian circles, its
use within Christian circles would have proved nothing. It is cited in
Romans 8 and Galatians 4, then, precisely because it was remembered
as something distinctive — a distinctive bond between Jesus and his
disciples, and so distinctive also in its original use by Jesus himself.

Why was it so distinctive of Jesus’ own prayer? The most probable
answer is that ‘Abba’ was a surprising word to use in addressing God.
In its natural usage it was a family word and usually confined to the
family circle. It was the word with which children would address the

48 The Evidence for Jesus

head of the family, and so carried with it a considerable note of warm
trust as well as of respect. It was a word resonant with family intimacy,
probably used by children from earliest years of speech; as we can
tell from its very form, it would be one of the earliest words an infant
would be able to say. There is no precise equivalent in English,
though the older style ‘Papa’ probably comes closest. The nearest
today would be the colloquial ‘Dad’.

The point is that to address God in such a colloquial way, with
such intimacy, is hardly known in the Judaism of Jesus’ time. The
regular Jewish prayers were a good dea! more dignified, more in the
style of the second address used in Matt. 11.25 — Luke 10.21: ‘Lord
of heaven and earth’. Interestingly enough, the same is true of the
typical Muslim today: he will address Aj}lah as the ‘All merciful’; but
‘Father’ is too bold and improper. So too at the time of Jesus. Had
most Jews of Jesus’ time considered using ‘Abba’ in addressing God
they would probably have rejected it as too intimate, as a mark of
irreverence,

Jesus would not have been unaware of this. And yet ‘Abba’ was
his characteristic way of addressing God. Presumably for the same
reason: what others thought too intimate in praying to God, Jesus
used because of its intimacy. The most obvious explanation for Jesus’
adoption of just this word as the hallmark of his prayer was that it
expressed an intimacy with God which he experienced and relied
upon in his relationship with God. He thought of himself before God
as a son before his father. Since the ‘Abba’ prayer is both so charac-
teristic and so distinctive of Jesus, it must mean that Jesus naturally
or instinctively saw himself as God’s son, sustained by that intimate
relation with God which only a son close to his father can know.

At this point the discussion could broaden out to consider other
key texts in the Synoptics — particularly Matt. 11.27/(Luke 10.22):

All things have been delivered to me by my Father;
and no one knows the Son except the Father
and no one knows the Father except the Son
and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

The difficulty here is that scholars cannot agree on this verse, on
whether it is a straightforward transcription of Jesus’ actual words,
or an example of the kind of elaboration which we saw so well
developed in John’s Gospel. In the latter case, of course, it remains
probable that it still reflects Jesus’ own understanding of his relation-
ship with God as something distinctively intimate. But that conclusion
we have already been able to draw from the examination of Jesus’
use of ‘Abba’.

Since our concern is to show what New Testament scholars conclude

Did Jesus Claim to be the Son of God? 49

about Jesus, and why, it would probably be better to refrain from
going further into the more disputed territory. The case has been
sufficiently clear and the conclusion firm. Although John’s Gospel is
a well developed portrayal of Jesus’ claims to divine sonship, that
claim is in fact well rooted in Jesus’ own ministry, and particularly in
his prayer address to God as ‘Abba’. Jesus, we may say with
confidence, thought of himself as God’s son and encouraged his
disciples to share his own intimate relationship with God as his son.

The Uniqueness of the Title ‘Son’

We should not end before we have noted just one further compli-
cation. It arises from the fact that we come to the New Testament
evidence with the hindsight of nearly twenty centuries of Christian
faith in Jesus as ‘the Son of God’. For Christians ‘Son of God’ is a
unique titfe. Onfy Jesus can 6e caffed ‘the Son of God’. What we
must realize, however, is that there was nothing particularly unique
about calling someone ‘son of God’ at the time of Jesus. Indeed in
the period in which Christianity began many people were regarded
as sons of God — that is, as enjoying the favour or approval or
authorization of God. Oriental rulers, particularly in Egypt, were
called sons of God — a title occasionally applied to the Jewish king
as well (as in II Sam. 7.14). Outside Judaism famous philosophers
like Pythagoras and Plato were sometimes spoken of as having been
begotten by a god (Apollo). Israel itself is quite often spoken of as
God’s ‘first-born son’ (as in Ex. 4.22). Within Judaism, as Jesus: the
Evidence rightly noted, there were at least two charismatic rabbis
from around the time of Jesus who are remembered as having enjoyed
a relationship of sonship before God as Father. And of wider appli-
cation, ‘the righteous man’ was quite often spoken of as God’s son.
Consider, for example, the Wisdom of Solomon, a book probably
written in the century before Jesus. In chapter 2.13-18 the enemies
of the righteous man are depicted as speaking:

Let us lie in wait for the righteous man,

because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions;
he reproaches us for sins against the law,

and accuses us of sins against our training.

He professes to have knowledge of God,

and calls himself a child of the Lord... .

he calls the last end of the righteous happy,

and boasts that God is his father.

Let us see if his words are true, .. .

for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him,
and he will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.

50 The Evidence for Jesus

The degree of intimacy may not be the same as with Jesus’ use of
‘Abba’. But the point remains that when Christians called Jesus God’s
son they would not have been heard as making the same exclusive
claim for Jesus’ uniqueness which the title ‘Son of God’ has in appli-
cation to Jesus now. This is one of the reasons why it would be unwise
to argue about whether a capital letter (Son or son) is appropriate
for Jesus’ own self-understanding or for the first stages of Christian
belief in Jesus as God’s son/Son.

This observation, however, should not be seen as lessening the
Christian claim for the significance of Jesus. On the contrary, it helps
to highlight the significance which the first Christians did in the event
recognize in Jesus. For it was not the application of the title ‘Son of
God’ to Jesus which transformed Jesus from someone rather ordinary
to someone unique. ‘Son of God’ was too common a description for
that. On the contrary, it was the distinctiveness of Jesus which caused
a rather more commonplace title to gain its note of exclusiveness,
because it had been applied to him! Not a unique claim made Jesus
appear unique; but by its application to him ‘Son of God’ came to
signify the uniqueness which characterized Jesus’ relationship to God.

Did Jesus Claim to be the Son of God? 51

Note on Professor Smith’s View

The second programme in the series Jesus: the Evidence gave promin-
ehce to the views of Professor Morton Smith of Columbia University,
New York. In 1958 Professor Smith himself discovered a letter
claiming to be the work of Clement of Alexandria (who flourished
between ap 180 and 200). In this letter there is talk of a secret Gospel
of Mark which tells of a young man coming to Jesus and staying with
him through the night while Jesus taught him ‘the mystery of the
kingdom’. Professor Smith infers from this that Jesus probably prac-
tised some secret nocturnal initiation.

1. On the basis of seeing a transcription of the text most scholars
have accepted that the text is from Clement. Though until more
experts have been able to examine and subject the original to appro-
priate tests the possibility of some elaborate hoax cannot finally be
ruled out. This point is made also in the notes accompanying Professor
Smith’s photograph of the letter in Ian Wilson’s Jesus: the Evidence,
written to accompany the television series.

2. The episode in which the visit of the young man is recorded
can be readily explained as a reworked amalgam of elements from
Mark 10 (the rich man, and Bartimaeus, principally) and the
story of Lazarus in John 11. There is nothing in the text itself to
indicate that the episode is an earlier version of accounts in Mark
and John.

3. As the letter itself states, the text of the secret Gospel comes
from the Carpocratians, who claimed to be custodians of secret
teaching from Jesus, and who may well have used the claim to justify
a degree of sexual licence in their esoteric practices. Such claims
were not uncommon among second-century groups who drew upon
Christian tradition and elaborated it for their own purposes. If auth-
entic, the letter of Clement probably refers to such elaboration. In
the letter itself Clement accepts that the secret Gospel was written
by Mark; but Clement is well known for his uncritical acceptance of
a wide range of material beyond the New Testament.

4. Professor Smith’s elaboration of his thesis becomes increasingly
fanciful - particularly his suggestion that in his secret nocturnal
initiation Jesus may have given the initiates a hypnotic experience in
which they shared his ascent to the kingdom of heaven (based on the
Story of the Transfiguration in Mark 9). No wonder Professor Henry
Chadwick of Cambridge University, in the follow-up discussion

52 The Evidence for Jesus

programme, described Professor Smith’s view as ‘marvellously
implausible, delightful to read; and there is not the slightest chance
that it is true’.

3 What did the First Christians Believe
about the Resurrection?

A third area of tension between historical research and Christian faith
exposed to view by Jesus: the Evidence concerns the resurrection
of Jesus. According to the third programme in the series, modern
scholarship presents a very different view of the evidence on which
is based the Christian belief that God raised Jesus from the dead.
There was nothing unusual in the ‘resurrection appearances’; there
are numerous reports of appearances of divine figures like Isis and
Asclepius (two of the most popular deities of that period). And the
stories of the empty tomb may not have emerged for some years or
even decades after the death of Jesus. Indeed, according to one New
Testament scholar much featured in the third programme (Professor
H. Koester of Harvard University), they can only have arisen when
Christians fled from Jerusalem, shortly before ap 66. Since they could
no longer worship at the tomb of Jesus (as must have been their
practice till then), the story of the tomb being empty was put about
as a way of explaining the lack of worship at Jesus’ tomb. Quite
where this left Christian belief in the resurrection was a point never
developed.

Here again the programme touched a sensitive nerve for many if
not most Christians. The belief that God raised Jesus from the dead
is, if anything, of even more fundamental importance to Christian
faith than the belief in Jesus as the Son of God. If it is untrue, or
true only in a very vague sense, a whole range of basic Christian
doctrines would have to be rewritten — particularly Christian under-
standing of who Jesus was and is, of the significance and effectiveness
of his death, and of the hope which Christians entertain for themselves
and for humanity. The words of Paul to the church in Corinth are
often quoted in this connection, and with justification: ‘If Christ has
not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins’ (I
Cor. 15.17).

The question therefore is as important as any question can be for
Christians: Has modern scholarship disproved the resurrection? Or
expressed more carefully, Has modern scholarship made belief in the

54 The Evidence for Jesus

resurrection of Jesus more difficult? To answer immediately, Yes and
No, as we have been able to do in the preceding chapters, is less
appropriate in this case. The issues here are more complex than can
be stated in a brief opening sentence. So we must start by stepping
back from the question in order to gain a clearer view of it ~ a clearer
view of the question itself and of why it is a question.

The Task of Historical Reconstruction

The task of the historian is a difficult one at any time. To do his job
properly he has to make some distinction along the following lines:
a distinction between event, data and reconstructed event.

The most important thing about the event is that it is past and gone.
It can never be experienced again. An event like it can be experienced
now or in the future. The memory of the event may still be cherished
in the present. But the event itself cannot be re-encountered. In its
uniqueness as an event it is unrepeatable. This obviously has
immediate consequences for the historian who is interested in an
event of the past (whether in a single event or one of a sequence of
events is irrelevant for our present discussion). For it simply means
that his investigation of that event is inevitably limited to some extent
at least - limited by the fact that he cannot experience that event for
himself. He has no immediate access to that event. He was not there.
He was not part of the event with all the questions he wants to find
answers for now.

But of course he is not entirely cut off from the event. He has no
access to the event itself. But he does have access to various data
which link him to the event. Whether the link is strong or weak
depends on the quality of the data. The data will usually include
people and things involved in the event, eyewitnesses, written reports,
circumstantial evidence, and so on. The closer in time he is to the
event, the closer he will be to the event. Through firsthand reports
etc. he will be at only one remove from the event. Conversely, the
farther back in time the event is, the further he will be from the
event. He will not be able to cross-examine eyewitnesses. Written
records, archaeological finds, and so forth, may not provide answers
to the questions he is asking. But usually there will be some data
which will provide some link to the event. Without such a link his
task as a historian would be impossible.

The historian’s task is to use what data he has to reconstruct what
he thinks happened. He has no delusions about that task. He knows
full well that the reconstructed event can never be a precise repro-
duction of the event. The data is never enough. The reconstructed
event will always be an approximation to the event. The fuller the:

Beliefs about the Resurrection 55

data, the better his chances that the reconstruction will be a close
approximation to the event. The less adequate the data, the more
difficult his chances of reconstructing something which is reasonably
approximate to what in the event happened.

The difficulty of the historian’s task has several aspects. Let me
simply mention two of the most important. In the first place, only
rarely is an ‘event’ straightforwardly objective. Events are experi-
enced by those involved in them. And, of course, they are experi-
enced differently. So when we talk of a historical event, what we are
usually talking about is the event as it was experienced by this person
or that. Even when events are strictly objective, their objectivity is
not usually the most important aspect of them. Julius Caesar crossed
the Rubicon on 10 January 49 sc. That is the objective event. But
much more important is the question of how that event was perceived
by Caesar and by his opponents. In many cases it would be more
accurate to speak of many events rather than one event, since the
participants and eyewitnesses of the event perceived it differently.

A second difficulty has already been hinted at — the need for the
historian to cross-examine the data. He must take account of the bias
of the written record, the chance factors which have preserved some
evidence and not others, the unstated assumptions of his source which
did not need to be stated because everyone took them for granted at
the time, and so on. The data are rarely simple ‘raw’ data. They
have already been ‘cooked’ to one degree or other. To change the
metaphor, they have been filtered through the medium or media
through which they reached the historian. He must always ask, How
much has been filtered out? How much have they been ‘contaminated’
by the medium?

All this means that the use of historical data to reconstruct historical
events is a very skilled job. The historian must interpret his data in
order to achieve the most satisfactory reconstruction. He must allow
for distortion in the data and bias in himself. And there will always
be something tentative or provisional about his reconstruction, since
there is always the possibility that new data will emerge which will
require a realignment of other data and a reassessment of the recon-
structed event.

This may sound exceedingly complex and demanding, and the task
of reconstruction so difficult as to be well-nigh impossible. But of
course, all that I have said so far could be taken as a description of
the task of a trial jury. They too are separate from the event. The
task of the counsels for defence and prosecution is to present all the
relevant data, and through cross-examination to present the recon-
Struction of the event most favourable to their case. The jury must
interpret the data for themselves, allowing for the limitations of

56 The Evidence for Jesus

witnesses’ testimony and the special pleading of barristers. And in
the end of the day they must decide which reconstruction of the event
is closest to the event — the prosecution’s, the defence’s, or their own.
There does not have to be a perfect match between reconstructed
event and event. There can be a number of loose ends, data which do
not entirely fit. But so long as they are confident that the prosecution’s
reconstruction is reasonably close to the event (‘beyond reasonable
doubt’) they are duty-bound to convict.

In principle the historian’s task is the same. With events far back
in history the data are less and the reconstruction more difficult and
usually less certain. But the task is essentially the same. What then
about the case before us now - the resurrection of Jesus from the
dead? or to retain the analogy, the Christian allegation that Jesus
was raised from the dead?

The Data Concerning ‘the Resurrection of Jesus’

If the event in question is ‘the resurrection of Jesus’, then we must
start with the recognition that we cannot get back directly to it. Even
if Christians claim to encounter Jesus Christ alive now, that is not
the same thing: whatever or whoever they are experiencing, it is
not the resurrection of Jesus itself. That belongs to the irretrievable
pastness of history. As usual, all we have is data. In this case we may
group the data into five categories. To begin with I will simply list
the data. The cross-examination will follow.

Reports of Jesus’ tomb being found empty

These occur in all four Gospels. The first three can again be
represented in parallel —- Matt. 28, Mark 16 and Luke 24.

THE EMPTY TOMB

Matt. 28.1-10 Mark 16.1~8 Luke 24.1-11 (12)

'Now after the sabbath, to- |! And when the sabbath was
ward the dawn of the first past, Mary Magdalene, and

day of the week, Mary Magdalene Mary the mother of James, and 'But on the first day of
and the other Mary went to Salome. bought spices, so that the week, at early dawn, they
see the sepulchre. they might go and anoint him. went to the tomb, taking the

2 And very early on the first spices which they had pre-

day of the week they went to pared.
the tomb when the sun had
risen.

Beliefs about the Resurrection

2 And behold, there was a
great earthquake; for an angel
of the Lord descended from
heaven and came and rolled
back the stone, and sat upon
it. 3 His appearance was like
lightning, and his raiment
white as snow. 4 And for fear
of him the guards trembled and
became like dead men.

S$ But the angel said to the
women, ‘Do not be afraid; for
I know that you seek Jesus
who was crucified. ®He is
not here; for he has risen, as
he said. Come, see the place
where he lay. ? Then go quickly
and tell his disciples
that he has risen from the
dead, and behold, he is going
before you to Galilee; there
you will see him. Lo, I have
told you.’

8 So
they departed quickly from
the tomb with fear and great
joy, and ran to tell his
disciples.

3 And they were saying to one
another, ‘Who will roll away
the stone for us from the door
of the tomb?’ 4 And looking
up, they saw that the stone
was rolled back; for it was
very large. 5 And entering
the tomb,

they saw a young man sitting
on the right side, dressed in
a white robe; and they were
amazed. ® And he said to them,
‘Do not be amazed; you seek
Jesus of Nazareth, who was
crucified. He has risen, he
is not here; see the place
where they laid him. 7 But go,
tell his disciples and Peter

that he is going
before you to Galilee; there
you will see him, as he
told you.’

8 And
they went out and fied from
the tomb; for trembling and as-
tonishment had come upon them;
and they said nothing to any
one, for they were afraid.

57

2 And they found the stone
rolled away from the tomb,

3 but when they
went in they did not find
the body. 4 While they were
perplexed about this, behold,
two men stood by them in
dazzling apparel; ‘Sand as
they were frightened and
bowed their faces to the
ground, the men said to
them, ‘Why do you seek the
living among the dead?

6 Remember how he
told you while he was. still
in Galilee, ‘that the Son
of man must be delivered into
the hands of sinful men, and
be crucified, and on the third
day rise.’ ® And they remem-
bered his words, ° and return-
ing from the tomb they told
ali this to the eleven and
to all the rest.

The account in John is close to the others to start with, but then
provides a different version ~ John 20.1-10.

Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb
early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken
away from the tomb. So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the
other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They
have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they
have laid him’. Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they

58 The Evidence for Jesus

went toward the tomb. They both ran, but the other disciple outran
Peter and reached the tomb first; and stooping to look in, he saw the
linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came,
following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying,
and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen
cloths but rolled up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who
reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as
yet they did not know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead.
Then the disciples went back to their homes.

Reported ‘sightings’ of Jesus after his death

To avoid prejudging the data I use the neutral word ‘sighting’.
Matthew records two such sightings: Matt. 28.8-10,16-20. The first
picks up where the story left off in the Synoptic presentation above.

[The women] departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy,
and ran to tell his disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and said,
‘Hail!’. And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshipped
him. Then Jesus said to them, ‘Do not be afraid; go and tell my
brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see me’.

A few verses later Matthew concludes his Gospel.

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which
Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshipped him;
but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in
heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make
disciples .. .’.

The earliest texts of Mark do not have any ‘sightings’; they end at
verse 8, and Mark may indeed have intended to end there. The longer
ending (verses 9-20) was certainly added at a later date to round
Mark’s narrative off in a way which later scribes and teachers
regarded as more fitting.

Luke 24.13-35 gives the lengthy account of the two disciples
encountering Jesus on the road to Emmaus. At the end of that story,
when the two return to Jerusalem, an earlier appearance to Peter is
mentioned: ‘The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon’
(24.34). It is followed by a further appearance to the disciples as a
group ~ Luke 24.36-43.

As they were saying this, Jesus himself stood among them. But they
were startled and frightened, and supposed that they saw a spirit. And
he said to them. ‘Why are you troubled, and why do questionings rise
in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle
me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have.’
And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said to

Beliefs about the Resurrection 59

them, ‘Have you anything here to eat?’. They gave him a piece of
broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them.

Luke’s Gospel concludes with a brief account of Jesus being taken to
heaven after commissioning the disciples. Luke’s second volume (the
Acts of the Apostles) speaks of further appearings prior to his being
taken up to heaven (Acts 1.1-11).

John’s Gospel has the most extensive sequence of ‘sightings’ — to
Mary Magdalene at the tomb, when she mistakes Jesus for the
gardener (John 20.11-18), the same evening to the disciples when
Thomas is absent (20.19-23), a week later to Thomas in the presence
of the other disciples (20.24—29), and finally to seven of the disciples
in Galilee, in what gives the impression of being an appendix to the
Gospel (21.1-~23).

In the case of the ‘appearances’ however, we also have testimony
from outside the circle of the Gospel writers. For Paul too speaks of
various sightings. He gives no account of them, but lists at least six
appearances in his first letter to the church in Corinth — I Cor. 15.3-8.

I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that
Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was
buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the
scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then
he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of
whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared
to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born,
he appeared also to me.

Transformation of the first disciples and initial spread of the new faith

With this data we move from more direct evidence to circumstantial
evidence. What is in view here in the first place is the marked ‘before
and after’ difference in the disciples. Before the event (‘the resurrec-
tion of Jesus’), the Gospels depict the disciples as demoralized and
broken. They had abandoned Jesus and fled when he was arrested in
the garden called Gethsemane (Mark 14.50). Peter had tried to stay
close but on being challenged had disowned Jesus completely (Mark
15.66-72). Only women and lesser known disciples are represented
as remaining loyal when Jesus is on the cross and as having a care
for his corpse (Mark 15.40-16.1). The two disciples on the road to
Emmaus lament over their shattered hopes - ‘We had hoped that he
was the one to redeem Israel’ (Luke 24.21). In the appendix to John’s
Gospel the disciples have returned to Galilee and seem to lack any
sense of purpose or direction (John 21.2-3).

Contrast the picture of the same disciples in the early chapters of
Acts. Peter and John move among the people of Jerusalem bearing

60 The Evidence for Jesus

witness to their faith in Jesus quite openly. When summoned before
the highest court in the land they speak so fearlessly that the court
is surprised: ‘When they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and
perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they wondered’
(Acts 4.13). When the court orders them to cease speaking or
teaching in the name of Jesus, Peter and John reply, ‘Whether it is
right in the sight of God, you must judge; for we cannot but speak
of what we have seen and heard’ (4.19-20). On being released and
returning to their friends, they receive fresh inspiration and speak
out with still more boldness (4.31).

Such testimony would, of course, have to be cross-examined and
its value assessed. But on first reading there is certainly relevant
testimony here. If men were transformed from frightened men
cowering indoors ‘for fear of the Jews’ (John 20.19) to men who
could not be intimidated even by the leading Jewish authorities,
something must have happened to them. There must be an adequate
explanation for such an outcome. ‘The resurrection of Jesus’ is part
of that explanation in the Christian sources.

The evidence of the initial spread of Christianity is simply an exten-
sion of the same range of data. The Acts of the Apostles depicts a
very rapid growth — 3,000 baptized on the day of Pentecost (Acts
2.41), soon growing to about 5,000 (4.4). Later on we read of ‘many
thousands among the Jews who have believed’ (21.20). There was
certainly a very rapid growth among Gentiles (non-Jews), so much
so that within a hundred years Christianity seems to have become
predominantly Gentile in membership (see further chapter 4). More
striking still is the fact that within three hundred years of Christianity's
being founded, and despite years of fierce persecution, it had become
the state religion of the Roman Empire.

Here too we have a sequence of events of undoubted significance.
The counsel for Christianity would want to argue that such a sequence
requires a starting event of sufficient significance to explain what
followed. The value of circumstantial evidence is that it calls for
an explanation of that evidence. Whatever fits best with the set of
circumstances indicated by the data is likely to be the best reconstruc-
tion of the event which gave rise to the data. From the Christian
perspective ‘the resurrection of Jesus’ is a central part of that expla-
nation. At the same time Christians should bear in mind that this
particular argument is a two-edged weapon. For, if anything, the
initial spread of Islam in the seventh and eighth centuries was more
dramatic and spectacular!

Beliefs about the Resurrection 61

The very high estimate of Jesus which soon became established in Christian
faith

Here the data focusses on the striking fact that within a few years
the first Christians were speaking about Jesus in divine terms. The
most outspoken testimony comes from John’s Gospel. lt begins by
speaking of ‘the Word’ which/who was in the beginning with God
and was God, through which/whom ‘all things were made’, and
which/who became flesh in Jesus Christ (John 1.1-3, 14). The
prologue to the Gospel ends by calling Jesus ‘the only Son’, or ‘the
only-begotten God’ (1.18); there are different readings in the ancient
Greek manuscripts, but the latter is more likely. In the same vein
the Gospel reaches its climax in the adoring confession of Thomas,
‘My Lord and my God!’ (20.28). In addition we may simply recall
the very high view of Jesus presented by John the Evangelist (above
chapter 2). The probability that this is a developed view (chapter 2)
is of no consequence here. It is the fact of such a development within
seventy years of Jesus’ ministry which is so striking.

But already within the first generation of Christianity we see Jesus
being spoken of in divine terms. Whether he is called ‘god’ in Romans
9.5 is not finally clear from the text. But he is called ‘Lord’ all the
time by Paul. The significance of that title emerges when we recall
that ‘Lord’ was the way of referring to God among the Greek-
speaking Jews of Paul’s time, at least those with whom Paul had to
deal. How much weight Paul puts upon this title is indicated by
another verse in Romans - ‘Everyone who calls upon the name of
the Lord will be saved’ (10.13). In the context it is clear that ‘the
Lord’ is Jesus (10.9). But verse 13 is actually a quotation from the
Old Testament (Joel 2.32), where ‘the Lord’ is God himself. Presum-
ably then there is some merging of God and Jesus or at least of their
functions in Paul’s view.

This evidence (and we have cited only part of it) should not be
overvalued. To feel the weight of its testimony we would have to
recall that in the ancient world it was by no means unknown for
famous men (kings, heroes of the faith, philosophers) to be thought
of as deified after death (see below p. 71). But neither should the
data here be undervalued. For the testimony comes not from Gentiles
to whom the deification of an emperor was more like a promotion to
‘the upper chamber’. It comes from Jews. And Jews were the most
fiercely monotheistic race of that age. So resolute was their insistance
that God is one and beside him is no other, that they were often
regarded as atheists! — because they refused to acknowledge that their
God was just one God among others, or one way of speaking of a
God whom they in fact shared with others. For a Jew to speak of a

62 The Evidence for Jesus

man, Jesus, in terms which showed him as sharing in the deity of
God, was a quite astonishing feature of earliest Christianity.

Perhaps the most striking passage of all at this point is Philippians
2.9-11: ‘. . . at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, ... and
every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord...’. What is so
striking is that it clearly alludes to Isaiah 45.23: ‘to me every knee
shall bow, every tongue shall swear’. And that comes as part of one
of the strongest monotheistic assertions of the Old Testament-‘... I
am God, and there is no other . . .’ (Isa. 45.22). The ‘me’ of v.23 is
the one God, beside whom there is none other. And yet, Paul refers
the passage to Jesus. In other words, within thirty years or so of
Jesus’ death, Jesus was being spoken of in terms that indicate that a
radical revolution was already underway in the Jewish conception of
God.

If then we are in the business of tracing chains of cause and effect,
we have to recognize here a very significant ‘effect’. An important
part of weighing the evidence will be checking whether we can
uncover a sufficient cause to explain that effect. From the Christian
perspective a fundamental part of the cause must be ‘the resurrection
of Jesus’. For Paul the Christian, confession of Jesus as Lord evidently
arose out of belief that God raised Jesus from the dead (Rom. 10.9).

Claims of believers since the beginning of Christianity to encounter Jesus alive
here and now

Many Christians would want to include within the basic data the
testimony of believers today. ‘I know that Jesus is alive. 1 was
speaking to him this morning.’

In a full-scale evaluation of the evidence such testimonies would
have to be examined with care. Their potential value is considerable.
The personal experience of a witness has more immediacy and direct-
ness than any of the other data so far listed.

We, however, will have to pass over this evidence. For such testi-
monies are rarely, if ever, of independent value. They almost always
depend to an important extent on the prior beliefs outlined in the
preceding paragraphs. It is because the Christian already believes
that Jesus is alive from the dead that he can recognize his experience
in prayer or devotion as an encounter with Jesus. Because he believes
that the resurrection of Jesus was the critical point of the ignition
sequence which blasted Christian understanding of Jesus skyward and
which made Christianity itself ‘take off’, he can also believe that as
a Christian he is in communication with this Jesus. I do not mean
that such testimonies are invalid or are necessarily to be discounted.
I simply make the point that they are at least to some extent secondary

Beliefs about the Resurrection 63

to the earlier beliefs. Any cross-examination would have to evaluate
the earlier beliefs before reaching a firm conclusion about the weight
to be attached to such testimonies. In the limited space available to
us here we must focus our attention on the evidence which is most
central in the inquiry.

The same is true in some measure of the data outlined in the two
preceding subsections (transformation of disciples, and high estimate
of Jesus). It was in part at least because the first Christians believed
that God had raised Jesus from the dead that they could preach and
evangelize with such boldness. And their reassessment of the true
significance of Jesus sprang in large measure from the same source.
Belief in the resurrection itself derived if anything from the first two
collections of data ~ the empty tomb reports and the ‘sightings’ of
Jesus. That belief was a powerful catalyst which helped set in train
the transformation in the disciples and in their understanding of
Christ. To acknowledge this is not to reduce the other data to the
status of a mere corollary of the prior belief in the resurrection. It is
simply to point out that if we wish to clarify the basic belief in the
resurrection of Jesus, our primary (and in this chapter exclusive)
attention will have to be given to the most central data - the reports
of the empty tomb and the reported sightings of Jesus after his death.

Even here our task will have to be limited. To subject this data to
a proper cross-examination would require more time and detailed
argument than is suitable for our present purposes. We must be
content to indicate briefly the scope of the discussion, and particularly
the considerations which weigh most heavily with Christian scholars
when they find that the evidence calls for positive assessment.

The Empty Tomb
We look first at the reports of Jesus’ tomb being found empty.

Contlicting evidence

Any jury scrutinizing the data listed above under this heading
would have to take account of the several differences between the
four Gospel narratives. The most important can be listed briefly.

1. The number of women involved — two (Matt.), three (Mark) or
one (John)?

2. The timing ~ before dawn (Matt., John) or after dawn (Mark)?

3. Was the stone rolled back in the presence of the women (as
Matthew may imply) or before they reached the tomb (Mark, Luke,
John)?

64 The Evidence for Jesus

4. Was there a communication on the first visit to the tomb (Matt.,
Mark, Luke) or not (John)?

5. How many angels - one (Matt., Mark), two (Luke), none
(John)?

6. Did the women tell the other disciples (Matt., Luke, John) or
not (Mark)?

There are also distinctive features in Matthew (the guard at the tomb
— Matt. 27.62-66; 28.4) and in John (the involvement of Peter and
the beloved disciple - John 20.2-10).

It can hardly be denied that here we have conflict of testimony.
There is nothing surprising in this. Conflict of testimony occurs in all
trials to some extent. Some may be the result of false testimony. But
it will be impossible to eliminate all conflict. As we noted above (p.
$5), an event is experienced differently by the different participants.
So their different accounts of it will not always mesh together into a
single whole. Consequently a jury considering the data regarding the
alleged empty tomb would have to ask, Does the degree of conflict
here go beyond what one might expect when dealing with different
testimonies to the same event? In particular, is the degree of
confusion more or less than we might expect where the participants
were very emotionally involved?

Moreover, our earlier discussion provokes a further question. Is
the amount of disagreement significantly different from the amount
of disagreement between other Gospel accounts of the same event?
We noted in chapter 1 how narratives could diverge even when they
were clearly recounting the same basic story. Another example would
be the healing of a blind man (or was it two blind men?) on the way
into (or was it out of?) Jericho (Matt. 20.29-30; Mark 10.46; Luke
18.35). The best example of how far accounts of the same event can
diverge in the process of retelling is the death of Judas. We may be
sure it was the same event (Judas died only once!), and some associ-
ated details are clear (use of the blood money to buy ‘Blood Field’).
But what precisely happened is now almost impossible to discern
(Matt. 27.3-10;, Acts 1.18-19). How many of the divergences in the
accounts of the empty tomb are the result of varying emphases and
embellishments of a basic account underlying them all?

Under such questioning the importance of the conflict of testimony
becomes less weighty. And the point on which they all agree if
anything gains greater significance. The unanimity of the claim that
the tomb was empty remains an impressive datum.

We have not yet mentioned one other potential conflict - between
Paul on the one hand and the united testimony of the Gospels. It
remains a somewhat uncomfortable fact that Paul nowhere mentions
the tomb of Jesus being empty, not even in that outline of the basic

Beliefs about the Resurrection 65

gospel which he himself had received at the beginning of his life as
a Christian. To be sure, he mentions Jesus’ being buried (I Cor.
15.4). But in the idiom of his time that could simply be a way of
emphasizing that Jesus was really dead (cf. Rom. 6.4). There is,
however, a question to be asked here: How relevant was the empti-
ness (or otherwise) of the tomb to Paul’s treatment in I Cor. 15? This
is a question to which we can return later, with greater benefit. For
the moment we may simply note that Paul does not actually address
the issue of the empty tomb. His silence on the subject is somewhat
surprising, but does not necessarily count against the unanimous testi-
mony of the Gospels.

Considerations in favour

A number of factors combine to strengthen the case for accepting
the Gospels’ testimony regarding the emptiness of Jesus’ tomb.
Indeed the strength of the arguments in favour of seeing the emptiness
of Jesus’ tomb as a piece of factual historical information is often not
appreciated, even among Christians. In this case scholarship should
be credited with uncovering several factors which together build up
into an impressive case.

1. Notice first that all four Gospels attribute the discovery of the
tomb’s emptiness to women. In our day, accustomed as we are to the
drive for sexual equality, that may not seem anything out of the
ordinary. But in the Palestine of that time a woman’s status and
testimony was not as highly regarded as a man’s. Indeed, women
were probably regarded as unreliable witnesses in first-century
Judaism, simply because they were women. A recent announcement
in Iran ruled that a woman’s testimony was only half the value of a
man’s. A very similar attitude was dominant in the eastern end of
the Mediterranean at the time of Jesus. That being so, we must
conclude that a testimony in which women are presented as the
primary witnesses must be based on sound fact. A contrived narrative
would hardly have given the leading testimony to women. Why attri-
bute it to women? Who would believe that? The only good reason
for attributing the report of the empty tomb to women is that this
was the way it was remembered as having actually happened.

2. The confusion between the different accounts in the Gospels
does not appear to have been contrived. The conflict of testimony is
more a mark of the sincerity of those from whom the testimony was
derived than a mark against their veracity. We may judge the
witnesses to be confused on points of detail (as witnesses often are
when they try to recall particular details), but hardly deceptive. And
to describe them as untrustworthy on the basis of such differences

66 The Evidence for Jesus

would be ungenerous. On the contrary, the more unanimous the
testimony at all points of detail, the more we would be forced to
conclude that they had all derived their testimony from a single
source. In which case we would no longer have four testimonies but
one testimony. But in the Gospels we must speak of at least two or
three different accounts, whose measure of agreement and disagree-
ment is sufficient to give weight to their united testimony.

Worth noting in particular is the surprising character of what is
probably the earliest of the four Gospels - Mark. If indeed the
original text did end at verse 8 of chapter 16, as is quite probable, it
would mean that the evangelist ended with the witnesses to the empty
tomb too afraid to say anything. Certainly there is a nice dramatic
sense here — the evangelist deliberately leaving unresolved the dishar-
mony caused by the final note of fear. But even so, it has what J. B.
Phillips calls ‘the ring of truth’ — not least in the implication that the
sign of the empty tomb is somewhat ambiguous: it was not immedi-
ately understood as evidence for resurrection.

Moreover, the fact that the earliest Gospel (Mark) ends without
any record of a ‘resurrection appearance’, has to be matched with
the fact that the earliest account of ‘resurrection appearances’ (I
Cor. 15) has no reference to the tomb being empty. This degree of
independence and lack of correlation between the two earliest records
speaks favourably for the value of each. There is nothing to indicate
that one was contrived to bolster the other.

3. Somewhat surprisingly there is archaeological evidence which
indirectly but quite strongly suggests that the tomb must have been
empty. Burial practice is, of course, one of the customs on which
archaeology can often speak with great authority. In this case we
know that at the time of Jesus it had become customary to return to
the tomb where a loved one had been laid, after a sufficient period
had elapsed (a year), to gather up the bones and put them in a bone
box (ossuary). The reasoning was straightforward: the bones should
be kept together so that in the resurrection God could use them to
(re)construct the body for resurrection. The bones would provide the
framework on which God could reconstitute the body — the process
described, in fact, in Ezekiel’s famous vision of the valley of dry bones
(Ezek. 37.7~10). At a later date, after discussion on the subject, the
rabbis concluded that God did not need the whole skeletal remains.
One bone would be sufficient.

The point is this. Archaeology has now provided evidence that at
the time of Jesus a popular understanding of resurrection in Palestine
would have involved some ‘re-use’ of the dead body. That this was
indeed a popular view at the period with which we are concerned, is
confirmed by two passages in the New Testament, which seem to

Beliefs about the Resurrection 67

reflect the same popular view — Matt. 27.52-53 and John 5.28-29. In
both cases the talk is of resurrection as the dead, or the bodies of
the dead, ‘coming out of the tombs’.

It follows that in Palestine the ideas of resurrection and of empty
tomb would naturally go together for many people. But this also
means that any assertion that Jesus had been raised would be unlikely
to cut much ice unless his tomb was empty. A claim made in Jerusalem
within a few weeks of his crucifixion, that God had raised Jesus (that
is, the body of Jesus) from death, would not have gained much
credence had his tomb been undisturbed or the fate of his body
known to be otherwise. The absence of any such counter claim in
any available literature of the period (Christian or Jewish) is therefore
important. The one exception, if ‘exception’ is the right word, is
Matt. 28.13-15 -— the attempt of the Jewish authorities to put the
story about that ‘Jesus’ disciples came by night and stole him away’.
How far back the account goes is debated. But at least it is clear that
at the time of Matthew this explanation was current among the Jews
(28.15). The significance is clear: even a Jewish response to the
Christian claim did not dispute the testimony about the tomb being
empty; on the contrary, the emptiness of the tomb was not a point
of controversy, only the explanation of why it was empty.

4. A further strong consideration in favour of the empty tomb
reports being regarded as rooted in historical fact is the absence of
any tomb veneration in earliest Christianity. We know that it was
quite customary at the time of Jesus for devotees to meet at the tomb
of the dead prophet for worship. The practice is reflected in Matt.
23.29 (‘you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments
of the righteous’). And it continues today in the veneration accorded
to the tombs of Abraham in Hebron and of David in Jerusalem.
Jesus: the Evidence provided fascinating footage of the worship still
practised at the tomb of the lesser known near contemporary of Jesus,
the charismatic rabbi, Honi, ‘the circle-drawer’.

Christians today of course regard the site of Jesus’ tomb with similar
veneration, and that practice goes back at least to the fourth century.
But for the period covered by the New Testament and other earliest
Christian writings there is no evidence whatsoever for Christians
regarding the place where Jesus had been buried as having any special
significance. No practice of tomb veneration, or even of meeting for
worship at Jesus’ tomb is attested for the first Christians. Had such
been the practice of the first Christians, with all the significance which
the very practice itself presupposes, it is hard to believe that our
records of Jerusalem Christianity and of Christian visits thereto would
not have mentioned or alluded to it in some way or at some point.

This strange silence, exceptional in view of the religious practice

68 The Evidence for Jesus

of the time, has only one obvious explanation. The first Christians
did not regard the place where Jesus had been laid as having any
special significance because no grave was thought to contain Jesus’
earthly remains. The tomb was not venerated, it did not become a
place of pilgrimage, because the tomb was empty!

Conclusions

The testimony is of course fragmentary. A jury would require a
good deal more before it could reach a verdict ‘beyond reasonable
doubt’. But if we have to draw conclusions on the basis of the evidence
available to us, I have to say quite forcefully: the probability is that
the tomb was empty. As a matter of historical reconstruction, the
weight of evidence points firmly to the conclusion that Jesus’ tomb
was found empty and that its emptiness was a factor in the first
Christians’ belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

The chief alternative interpretations of the data all seem to me,
and in the view of many scholars, to involve greater improbabilities.
The suggestion that the body had in fact been left undisturbed, or
that others had stolen it makes hard work of the third consideration
apove. Had the fate of Jesus’ body been known to rule out the claim
tnat God had ‘re-used’ it, it is hard to understand how and why the
Christian claim went unchallenged. In the Palestine of that time
nothing could have provided a more devastating rebuttal of the Christ-
jan claim than a testimony that Jesus’ body or bones still lay in their
‘inal resting place.

The argument that the disciples themselves stole the body runs up
against the fourth consideration above. Even if we suppose that only
a iew were involved in the conspiracy, it is hard to believe that no
mint or rumour of it reached a larger body of disciples. And if some
snew that Jesus’ final tomb was not empty, it is even harder to believe
that they did not make that tomb a place of pilgrimage. The duplicity
involved, not only in proclaiming Jesus’ resurrection when it was
known that his bones were undisturbed, but also in failing to give
due honour to the real tomb of the dead prophet, is hard to match
with what we know of the first Christians.

A number of scholars do argue that the belief in an empty tomb
arose late. For myself I find no evidence of this from the texts them-
selves; the data of the texts themselves are at best (or worst)
ambiguous. But the other considerations mentioned above (1-4) seem
to me to tip the balance of probability fairly heavily in favour of the
historicity of the empty tomb. Professor Koester’s rather idiosyncratic
theory on the subject I will deal with in a little more detail at the
end of the chapter.

Beliefs about the Resurrection 69

In short then, Christians should feel no embarrassment regarding
the Gospels’ report that Jesus’ tomb was found empty. Some scholars
question the report, but scholarship as a whole has done more to
substantiate than to disprove it. Whatever we make of it, here, we
may say with confidence, is a piece of good historical information.

Resurrection Appearances

The reports of Jesus’ being seen alive after his death form the other
set of primary data which call for scrutiny.

Conflicting evidence

Here too there is a certain amount of confusion. In particular, were
there ‘sightings’ at or near the tomb (Matthew and John), or only
later and elsewhere (as both Mark and Luke imply)? More important,
were there appearances in Galilee (Matthew, Mark? and John) or
only in Jerusalem (as Luke seems to indicate - Luke 24.49; Acts
1.4)? When we compare the four or five different sources of such
reports (Matthew, Luke and Acts 1, John and I Cor. 15), a striking
fact is the lack of parallel. Each contain one or more reports of which
the others make no mention. Indeed, almost the only common ground
between two or more is that (1) the earliest appearances were to
women (Matthew and John), (2) one of the first appearances was to
Peter (Luke 24.34; I Cor. 15.5), and (3) there was one or more
appearances to ‘the twelve’ (all five, including Acts 1.2~3 and I Cor.
15.5).

Considerations in favour

In this case also there are various factors which indicate strongly
that this testimony should not be lightly discounted as fabrication or
cranky.

1. The earliest testimony goes back to a very early stage. Paul
wrote his first letter to the Corinthians some time in the early 50s —
between twenty and twenty-five years after the death of Jesus. That
places it well within the life-time of many of those who claimed to
have seen Jesus soon after his death. Indeed, Paul deliberately points
out that many of the ‘more than five hundred brethren’ who saw
Jesus ‘are still alive’ (15.6). The invitation is clear: we have plenty of
firsthand witnesses; you can ask them yourselves. Paul evidently had
no qualms about his witnesses being subjected to cross-examination.

Moreover, Paul explicitly states that the reports he outlines in I
Cor. 15 he had himself received from those before him in believing

70 The Evidence for Jesus

in Christ (15.3). Paul was converted within two or three years of
Jesus’ death, perhaps as little as eighteen months after the first reports
of Jesus being seen alive after his death. And almost certainly he
received this basic outline of the gospel very soon after his conversion,
as part of his initial instruction. In other words, the testimony of I
Cor. 15.3-8 goes back to within two or three years of the events
described. In terms of ancient reports about events in the distant
past, we are much closer to eyewitness testimony than is usually the
case.

2. Note again the prominence of women in the records of the first
‘sightings’ (Matt. 28; John 20). The significance of this factor I have
already explained above (p. 65). The implication is the same in this
case. Since women’s testimony was not highly regarded in ancient
Palestine, the most obvious explanation for the first reports being
attributed to women is that in the actual event it was women who
were the first to see Jesus.

Paul’s omission of any women witnesses in his I Cor. 15 list may
reflect something of the same bias. In what has the appearance of
being a fairly formal list of witnesses, the inclusion of appearances
to women would be regarded as a weakening of the claim not a
strengthening. Contrariwise, the inclusion of such testimony else-
where, despite the bias against women as witnesses, is all the more
impressive.

3. In this case too there is no indication that the diversity of reports
is contrived. There is a curious episodic character about the reports
themselves and the way they are set down. Particularly in Matthew,
Luke and John 21, there has been no real attempt to provide a
coherent sequence or structured listing. Overall, the impression is
given of a number of reported sightings which occurred on what might
otherwise be called a random basis. This lack of artificiality again
encourages a sympathetic assessment of the testimony being given.
Naive we may think them, but not malicious or deceitful.

Worthy of particular mention is Matt. 28.17: ‘When they saw him
they worshipped him; but some doubted’. Here again we may speak
of ‘the ring of truth’. Of course the motif of doubt can often be
introduced as a way of strengthening the claim being made. By
showing that the doubt was resolved similar doubts on the part of the
readers may be quietened. Both Luke and John make quite effective
use of this technique (Luke 24.36-43; John 20.24-29), though in both
cases they are probably working with already established tradition.
But Matthew makes no attempt to show the doubt being resolved.
Since, therefore, the note of doubt is not introduced in order to show
how it was removed, the next best explanation is that it was intro-
duced simply because it was part of the original eyewitness testimony.

Beliefs about the Resurrection 71

In the event, some were not sure what to make of what they saw and
experienced. As with Mark’s account of the women returning from
the tomb (Mark 16.8), so here. The witnesses admit that the events
were of such a character that their response to them was somewhat
confused. Where such honesty is evident in testimony, the calibre of
that testimony, including the points of agreement, must be accorded
high esteem.

Alternative explanations

Where the integrity of these early reports must be respected, the
most obvious alternative explanation is that the witnesses were
deluded — not deceitful, but deceived. In other words, the ‘resurrec-
tion appearances’ were in fact nothing more than hallucinatory projec-
tions of the first disciples’ frustrated hopes, visions begotten of
hysteria.

Here too, however, such a hypothesis runs into greater improbabili-
ties than is often realized.

1. The parallel with visions of Isis and Asclepius (above p. 53) is
hardly close. These were mythical figures from the dim past. In the
sightings of Jesus we are talking about a man who had died only a
few days or weeks earlier. Moreover, the psychological conditioning
of those involved is different. Dreams of Asclepius were regularly
expected as part of the healing process attributed to Asclepius.
Indeed, at the temples dedicated to Asclepius there was normally a
room set aside (an abaton) in which the god would appear to the
patient in a healing dream. And in initiation ceremonies to the Isis
cult visions were probably expected as the high point of the ceremony
(there may be an allusion to this sort of belief in Col. 2.18). The
situation with the first disciples was quite different. A much more
complicated psychological process would have to be hypothesized to
explain the first and subsequent seeings of Jesus. The more compli-
cated, the more speculative. The more speculative, the more
doubtful.

2. There are in fact much closer parallels if we want to draw them
into the discussion. In the Jewish literature from this whole period
we read of various visions of dead heroes of the faith (Abel, Jeremiah,
‘the righteous man’, among others). In these visions the individual is
seen as robed in heavenly glory, a figure of majesty, numbered with
the angels, or some such language. This seems to be a much better
parallel. Until we realize that in no other case did the one(s) seeing
the vision conclude, ‘This man has been raised from the dead’. /t is
not the seeing of Jesus after he was dead which was so surprising in
the context of the times. It was the conclusion to which the seeing

72 The Evidence for Jesus

led which is without parallel. ‘Visions’ may be a quite appropriate
description of these ‘sightings’. But they were visions of a peculiar
sort. Paul seems to be making just this point when he distinguishes
the resurrection appearances of I Cor, 15.3-8, which ended with
himself (‘last of all’), from the various other visionary experiences he
knew thereafter (II Cor. 12.7). There was evidently a distinctiveness
about ‘the resurrection appearances’ which should not be lost sight
of in the search for parallels.

3. If we pursue the logic of the ‘hallucinatory projection’ expla-
nation, we would expect the hallucinations to be made up of images
and symbols the first disciples had gleaned from Jesus. Of these the
image with greatest potential power to fire the imaginations of the
disappointed disciples would probably be the one of a heavenly figure
‘coming on clouds of glory’. According to early traditions, the
disciples remembered Jesus as using just such language (especially
Mark 13.26; 14.62). Yet there is nothing of this in the various accounts
of resurrection appearances — even those where Jesus seems to appear
from heaven. For the rest, it is the unexpectedness of the manifest-
ation which is the stronger feature.

Here too, therefore, those offering the alternative explanations do
not seem to have probed the data with sufficient thoroughness. They
have allowed themselves to be impressed by parallels which, on closet
inspection, do not seem close enough to provide a satisfactory
analogy. There are uncharacteristic features in our accounts which
probably require an uncharacteristic explanation.

An odd belief

The most unusual feature is so unusual that it deserves separate
comment. I refer to the oddness of the belief that Jesus had been
‘raised from the dead’. Christians and those well used to the Christian
tradition today are so familiar with this way of speaking about what
happened to Jesus after his death that they fail to realize just how
odd it was when first put forward, how strange the claim was when
it was first formulated. Two points should be noted.

1. There was a belief in resurrection at the time of Jesus. We know
that the Pharisees held such a belief (cf. Acts 23.6). And Jesus
evidently argued about it with the Sadducees (Mark 12.18~27). But
it was belief in the final resurrection. The resurrection the Pharisees
looked for was the resurrection of the dead at the end of history, the
‘general resurrection’ — the resurrection of which Daniel speaks:
‘many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some
to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt’

Beliefs about the Resurrection 73

(Dan. 12.2). The unusual feature about the Christian claim was their
belief that Jesus alone had been raised before the end.

2. More precisely, the first Christians believed that with Jesus’
resurrection the general resurrection had already begun. In Romans
1.4 the phrase used for Jesus’ resurrection is not, as we might expect,
‘his resurrection from the dead’ (the more usual formulation), but
‘the resurrection of the dead’. Paul here probably quotes an older
formula which indicates the very early understanding that what had
happened to Jesus was what was expected for the end of history. The
same corollary follows from Paul’s description of Jesus’ resurrection
as ‘the first fruits’ of the resurrection of ‘all’ (1 Cor. 15.20-23). The
imagery is that of the harvest — the ‘first fruits’ being the first sheaf
which was reserved for God. The point is that there would be no gap
between cutting the first sheaf and reaping the rest of the harvest. The
first fruit was simply the beginning of the harvest. So the description of
Jesus’ resurrection as the ‘first fruit’ of the genera) resurrection could
only have been coined by those who thought that with the resurrection
of Jesus the final events of history had begun. The same belief is
almost certainly mirrored in the otherwise puzzling account of the
dead coming out of the tombs and being seen in Jerusalem after
Jesus’ resurrection (Matt. 27.52-53).

The oddness and unexpectedness of the first Christian belief that
God had raised Jesus from the dead should not be discounted. A
belief that God had vindicated Jesus or exalted him to heaven after
death would have been more understandable. But that they should
conclude from these ‘sightings’ (and from the empty tomb) that God
had actually begun the resurrection of the dead is without any real
precedent. There must have been something about these first encoun-
ters (visionary or otherwise) which pushed them to what was an
extraordinary conclusion in the context of that time. A careful jury
would have to ask why the first Christians drew such an unusual
conclusion. In the light of the considerations outlined above, the
answer would be quite proper: A unique explanation for a unique
event.

But What do We Mean by ‘Resurrection’?

Our task is not quite finished. For thus far we have simply used the
key term given us by our sources — ‘resurrection’. The empty tomb
led to the conclusion, ‘God has raised Jesus from the dead’. The
‘sightings’ were understood as appearances of Jesus as ‘raised’ by
God on the third day after his crucifixion. But what do we mean by
‘resurrection’? What actually happened on that third day? What is

74 The Evidence for Jesus

it that this word which comes now so easily to a Christian’s lips
describes?

Answer: We don’t know! According to our data, no one actually
witnessed ‘the resurrection’. We cannot even be sure that ‘it’ could
be witnessed. At best a disappearance, or, I suppose, ‘dematerializ-
ation’ of the corpse was as much as would be visible to the eye.
‘Resurrection’ is itself not part of our data. It is an inference drawn
from our primary data - empty tomb and appearances. Whether
the inference came from heavenly information (as represented, for
example, in Matt. 28.6), or as a direct deduction from the events
themselves, makes no difference. ‘Resurrection’ is a deduction not a
datum.

More important, when we add the word ‘body’ to the word ‘resur-
rection’ (resurrection body) we have to take note of the fact that
the New Testament writers present different conceptions of what a
‘resurrection body’ is. In Luke’s account Jesus’ resurrection body is
very ‘physical’: Jesus himself says, ‘Handle me and see; for a spirit
has not flesh and bones as you see that I have’ (Luke 24.39). Paul
however makes a clear distinction between the body of this life (=
‘physical or natural body’) and the resurrection body (= ‘spiritual
body’) (I Cor. 15.42-46). And he concludes his discussion on the
point with the ringing declaration: ‘I tell you this, brethren: flesh and
blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God . . .’ (I Cor. 15.50). What
Luke affirms (Jesus’ resurrection body was flesh and bones) Paul
denies (the resurrection body is not composed of flesh and blood)!

In view of popular misunderstanding among Christians on this issue
the point needs to be clarified and stated with some precision. In I
Corinthians Paul seems to have been writing for Greeks who found
the idea of the resurrection of this body impossible to imagine (I Cor.
15.12, 35, cf. Acts 17.32). Hence the two most important features of
this part of his argument in I Cor. 15. On the one hand he insists on
the resurrection of the body. But at the same time he makes his
distinction between this body and the resurrection (= spiritual) body.
Paul believed in the resurrection of the body, but not the resurrection
of this body. Properly speaking, then, Paul believed in a ‘spiritual’
resurrection; ‘spiritual’ is his word. There will be continuity between
the person that was and the person that will be. But there will also
be difference. Paul himself uses the analogy of the relation between
the body of the seed and the body of the plant (I Cor. 15.36-38) —
an analogy of continuity, but also of difference between different
bodies, between physical body and spiritual body (‘You foolish man!
. . . What you sow is not the body which is to be . . .’). The flexibility
which Paul shows in his conception of the resurrection is a warning

Beliefs about the Resurrection 75

to us against thinking that there was a hard and fast, or single,
uniform understanding of the resurrection in the beginning.

On the other hand, this recognition of a degree of ambiguity in the
concept ‘resurrection’ should not be made an excuse to empty it of
all real content. There is no justification for reducing the meaning of
‘the resurrection of Jesus’ to something like, ‘the continuing signifi-
cance of Jesus’, or ‘the disciples’ realization that Jesus’ message could
not die’. By ‘resurrection’ they clearly meant that something had
happened to Jesus himself. God had raised him, not merely reassured
them. He was alive again, made alive again with the life which is the
climax of God’s purpose for humankind, not merely retrieved from
the jaws of death but conqueror over death, ‘exalted to God’s right
hand’. It was this glowing conviction which lay at the heart of the
chain reaction which began Christianity.

At the same time, it needs to be repeated that any attempt to
achieve greater clarity or precision in describing this core of the
Christian faith is bound to become increasingly impossible. No event
of the past is recoverable, as we noted at the beginning. But an event
which was never witnessed by human eye and which by definition
breaks through the bounds of history, is an event which goes beyond
the capacity of historical description. To that extent at least the
concept ‘resurrection’ can properly be called a ‘metaphor’ or ‘symbol’,
since it describes something we can only partially and inadequately
grasp, and since those of us this side of death (whose language it is)
can have no direct experiential knowledge of what we actually do
mean by ‘resurrection’.

Conclusions

1. It is almost impossible to dispute that at the historical roots of
Christianity lie some visionary experiences of the first Christians, who
understood them as appearances of Jesus, raised by God from the
dead.

2. It is almost as difficult to deny that the emptiness of Jesus’
grave was a contributory fact to this earliest conviction of the first
Christians.

3. At the same time, Paul’s understanding of the resurrection body
as a spiritual body strictly speaking does not require an empty grave.
The continuity between the body that was and the body that is to be
is not of that one-to-one kind. This is why the fact that some bodies
are eaten by sharks or blown to pieces and that almost all bodies
return to dust does not weaken in any way the Christian hope of ‘the
resurrection of the body’. In the terms Paul has given us, Christian
belief in resurrection is not properly speaking belief in a physical

76 The Evidence for Jesus

resurrection. Nor is it properly speaking belief in immortality (the
true ‘me’ will never die). The Christian believes rather that death is
followed by resurrection more in the sense of recreation.

4. We therefore have a strange feature at the heart of this funda-
mental Christian belief about Jesus. At the historical level it is very
hard to explain how the belief in Jesus’ resurrection arose unless his
tomb was empty. At the theological level, however, the emptiness of
the tomb is not necessary to belief in the resurrection. The fact that
both statements can be made strengthens both — strengthens the
historical force of the one and the theological force of the other. It
also means that as Luke and Paul differed in their emphases at this
point, so Christians today can have similar differences in emphasis,
without thereby calling in question the canonical validity or orthodoxy
of each other.

5. The Christian interpretation of the basic data (empty tomb and
appearances) as ‘God raised Jesus from the dead’ is a surprising fact
for which alternative interpretations of the data fail to provide a more
satisfactory explanation.

Has New Testament scholarship made belief in the resurrection of
Jesus more difficult? Once again the answer has to be, Yes and No.
Yes — but only for those who insist on trying to define ‘the resurrection
of Jesus’ in over-precise terms, or who take the emphasis of one New
Testament writer and ignore or play down the emphasis of another.
No ~ for scholarship has clarified what the first Christians believed
and why. Scholarship forces us to recognize that ‘the resurrection of
Jesus’ is an attempt to say something which goes beyond human
description. But it also helps us to recognize that there must have
been powerful and compelling factors which resulted in the first
Christian confession, ‘God has raised Jesus from the dead’!

Beliefs about the Resurrection 77

Note on Professor Koester’s View

In the first half of the third programme in the series Jesus: the
Evidence, Professor H. Koester of Harvard University put forward a
view which must have been surprising, even astonishing, to many,
not excluding many New Testament scholars. His argument was (1)
that the first Christians must have followed the normal practice of
worshipping at the tomb of Jesus; (2) that the Christians who had
abandoned Jerusalem shortly before the outbreak of the Jewish revolt
in AD 66 decided to explain the lack of worship at the tomb by saying
the tomb was empty; and (3) that as the Gospels were written down
years later, the story quickly began to be used to suggest that the
tomb had always been empty.

(1) The assumption that Christians worshipped at the tomb of
Jesus is not supported by any direct evidence whatsoever. Given the
probability that a dead prophet’s tomb would have provided a focal
point for worship by his continuing disciples, the absence of any
allusion to such worship has to be explained, either by the hypothesis
of an empty tomb (and therefore the only reason for focussing the
memory at the tomb was removed — no allusion, because no
worship!), or by arguing that such allusions have been suppressed. In
the light of the complementary considerations marshalled above the
former must surely be judged the more probable.

(2) and (3) Professor Koester envisages a process of creation and
development in the tradition of the empty tomb which started about
AD 66 and which must have taken a number of years to reach its
present form in Mark 16. But most scholars would say that Mark’s
Gospel was probably written before ap 70, very likely in Rome, and
that Mark was using older tradition in Mark 16 as elsewhere.
Professor Koester himself thinks a date shortly after ap 70 for the
time of composition of Mark is likely, and locates its place of compo-
sition in Antioch or some other city in western Syria. But he also
thinks that there are indications elsewhere (John’s Gospel and the
Gospel of Peter) of an earlier form of the empty tomb narrative
(earlier than Mark). However, the suggestion that a story put about
by some ex-Jerusalem Christians should have become widely spread
and firmly enough established among the Christian congregations at
large for it to be ‘received tradition’ used by Mark and those before
him within about three or four years, is a good deal less plausible

78 The Evidence for Jesus

than the traditional story that Jesus’ tomb was found empty on the
first Easter Sunday morning.

We may simply contrast the conclusion reached by the Jewish
scholar, Geza Vermes, who presumably has fewer axes to grind on
this subject than Christian scholars: ‘In the end, when every argument
has been considered and weighed, the only conclusion acceptable to
the historian must be . . . that the women who set out to pay their
last respects to Jesus found to their consternation, not a body, but
an empty tomb’ (Jesus the Jew, Collins 1973, p. 41).

4 Earliest Christianity: One Church or
Warring Sects?

A fourth topic probed by the series Jesus: the Evidence was the
emergence of the Christian church as such. Here too disturbing issues
were raised for many Christians — not least by the assertion that ‘right
from the beginning Christianity was split between different factions
vying for supremacy’. Indeed, one might say that an underlying
purpose of the series was to pose the challenging question: Have
ordinary Christians been told the whole truth? Have the findings of
scholars been kept from the ordinary believer? And in this case, if
anything the more serious question: Have recent discoveries shed
new light on the beginnings of Christianity which require us to revise
our picture of what Christianity was like in the first decades of its
existence? Those who saw the television programmes will recall how
the series began and ended, with the limited-budget portrayal of early
Christian theologians coming to blows at the fourth-century Council
of Nicaea on issues of doctrinal disagreement. And viewers were
shown more than once the film sequences of documents being
uncovered from Egyptian cave and sand, with the unspoken inference
ready to hand that these documents contained new and disturbing
revelations for the faithful about the true story of Christianity’s
beginnings.

Here too the same question poses itself: Has biblical scholarship
and the scholarship of early church historians effectively undermined
the beliefs about Christianity’s origins still cherished in most Christian
churches? And here once again, I’m afraid, the question has to be
answered with a Yes and No. Yes! — for scholarship certainly has
been fairly effective in undermining what one scholar has called ‘the
myth of Christian beginnings’. There are some beliefs about the
emergence of the Christian church which should be undermined — no
matter how cherished they may be! But if the question has in view
more fundamental beliefs about the character of Christianity as a
whole, then the answer is No! And if the scholarship in view is the
very lop-sided presentation of the third programme of Jesus: the
Evidence, the answer is certainly No!

80 The Evidence for Jesus
The Myth of Christian Beginnings

There is a popular view of Christian origins which fascinates and
deeply influences many Christians. It is the view that the church of
the beginning period was the church as it should be, that the first
expression of Christianity was the finest expression of Christianity.
This is not simply a case of idealizing the past, of harking back to a
long departed Golden Age. Apart from anything else, the Golden
Age of a nation or a movement does not usually coincide with the
first emergence of that nation or movement. Nor is it simply a case
of giorifying founder members, a romantic fascination with beginnings
as such, producing a larger than life portrayal of how the church
began.

The myth of the perfect original form of Christianity emerges more
from the centrality of Christ to Christianity. The assumption is that
to have been with Jesus when he was on earth must be the most
desirable relationship with Jesus possible for the disciple of Jesus.
Next best would be to have heard directly from and enjoyed the
company of those who were themselves with Jesus, his first disciples.
The almost inevitable result is an idealization of the apostolic age.
The age of the apostles as the age of power, when the word of God
was preached with astounding effectiveness, attested by signs and
wonders from God. The age of the apostles as the age of purity,
when the gospel was unadulterated, before false teaching and heresy
appeared. The age of the apostles as the age of perfection, when the
church was undivided, united by a common spirit and love. One
church, one faith, one baptism.

On this view it becomes significant that the following epoch of
Christianity should be called the sub-apostolic age. For not only is it
the epoch which followed the death of the apostles. But the very
prefix sub- (subapostolic) implies something on a lower level, an
inferior stage of Christian history. Subconsciously evoked is the
parallel with the opening chapters of Genesis ~ paradise followed by
fall. The age of Jesus and his apostles seen as the new creation’s
period of paradise, the period following, by implication, a fallen state.

To be fair, this view of Christian beginnings is given some credibility
within the New Testament itself. Consider the words of Paul in taking
leave of the elders of Ephesus as we have them in Acts 20.29-30:

I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you,
not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men
speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.

Similarly the forebodings of I Timothy 4.1-3:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from

Earliest Christianity 81

the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared, who
forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created
to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the
truth.

In both passages the picture is of a period following the death of the
apostles when ravening wolves would begin to break in from outside
and to worry the flock with false teaching, an age when many in the
church would abandon their first love and decline into unbelief.

This view was powerfully reinforced in the patristic period when the
fight against heresy resulted in an increasing idealization of Christian
beginnings. During the apostolic age the church had remained a
virgin, pure and uncorrupted. But since then false teachers had tried
to defile it with godless error. The apostolic age had been the age of
truth. Error was innovation. In the words of Tertullian, one of the
most forceful of the earliest Fathers:

Were Christians found before Christ? Or heresy before true doctrine?
But in everything truth precedes its counterfeit. It would be absurd to
regard heresy as the prior doctrine since it is prophesied that heresy
should arise (Prescription against Heretics 29).

In the past hundred years or so such views have continued to
exercise a powerful influence in both the scholarly and the popular
perception of how Christianity began. A good example is the great
Protestant scholar Adolf von Harnack, whose lectures on the essence
of Christianity at the beginning of the twentieth century were widely
influential. For Harnack the ideal time was restricted more or less to
Jesus’ own ministry; and the ideal form of Christianity was the
teaching of Jesus. The simple, pure message of Jesus about the father-
hood of God and the brotherhood of man had unfortunately soon
been corrupted by the process of translating and expanding it into
the categories of Greek philosophy — a process which began already
with Paul! More prominent today is the desire among many Christians
to recapture the drive and zeal of the first Christians. ‘Back to the
Bible!’ is still a powerful slogan. ‘Back to New Testament Christ-
ianity!’ is the motivation which inspires many a Christian group to
try to recreate and relive the church pattern of the apostolic age.

In all this there is a subtle tendency to treat the period of Christian
beginnings as qualitatively different, a time separate and distinct from
what followed — a kind of timeless age, not subject to the same forces
of change and decay which the forms and organizations of this world
know all too well. Hence indeed the preference for such phrases as
‘the apostolic age’, ‘New Testament Christianity’: to speak of ‘first-

82 The Evidence for Jesus

century Christianity’ is too rudely this-worldly; it locates earliest
Christianity too firmly within the ebb and flow of ordinary history.

The diversity of denominations

With the Reformation, of course, different church patterns emerged
in Western Christianity. Yet, somewhat surprisingly, this new situ-
ation made little difference to the still universal view of Christian
beginnings. The different denominations continued to hold the same
belief about the character of earliest Christianity. They simply applied
the universal thesis to their own denomination, each maintaining that
they (their denomination, their form of the church) were most nearly
in accord with the original pattern.

The trouble was that each denomination saw its own pattern within
the New Testament. They treated the New Testament as a kind of
mirror, which, not surprisingly, reflected their own convictions and
prejudices — Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed (Presbyterian),
Anglican, Baptist and Independent. That would not have been so
serious — except that in order to maintain the belief that they were
right, they had to maintain also that the others were wrong. They
were the true heirs of the apostolic church; the others were the false
teachers with their deluded flocks. So wrong were they that they had
to be denounced and where possible rooted out.

Historical scholarship has helped us to see that such views are all
an oversimplification. The reason why each can see its own image in
the mirror of the New Testament is simple — because all are there.
All the different church orders current today can be validated from
the New Testament. If episcopacy, presbyterianism, congregational
and baptist ecclesiologies can each be justified individually, then all
can be justified. The diversity of patterns of church organization and
ministry had already been recognized more than a hundred years ago
by one of Durham’s greatest scholar-bishops, J. B. Lightfoot, in his
magisterial treatment of ‘The Christian Ministry’ (1868).

The Diversity of Christianity in the First Century

At first this recognition of diverse forms of Christianity within the
New Testament could be simply countered by the argument that the
whole style of church order was not yet clearly developed in the New
Testament. At the time the New Testament documents were written,
Christian church order was only at an embryonic stage. The full or
proper church order emerged only later. In this way the range of
ecclesiologies within the New Testament itself could be made less
threatening.

Earliest Christianity 83

But then it came to be more clearly realized that what the New
Testament shows is not just undeveloped diversity but genuine diver-
sity. The diversity of first-century Christianity could not be discounted
as simply unthought out expressions of faith, unworked out forms of
corporate life. There were real and important differences between
the Christians of the founding period in their understanding of what
Christianity was and of how it should be expressed. And not just on
peripheral or secondary matters - on some central matters as well.
And not just diversity and difference, but disagreement and contro-
versy, Sometimes on very important issues.

Consider the following passages from Paul’s letters — bearing in
mind that Paul’s are the only New Testament documents which we
can be sure come from the first generation of Christianity, the apos-
tolic age par excellence!

First of all from Galatians 1.6-9:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you
in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel — not that there
is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to
pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven,
should preach to you a gospel contrary to (or at variance with) that
which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said
before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel
contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

At first, because the words are so familiar, we may assume that
Paul is attacking enemies of Christianity —- presumably Jews who held
the same attitude to Christianity which Paul himself had maintained
before his conversion. But with a little more thought we quickly
realize that Paul is actually attacking fellow Christians, or at least
people who made the same claim to belief in Christ as Paul did
himself. Like Paul they understood their message as ‘gospel’; it is
Paul who calls it ‘a different gospel’. Like Paul they thought of their
message as ‘the gospel of Christ’; Paul accepts that title to the extent
that he sees their message as a perversion of that gospel, but not an
outright denial of or contradiction to it. The message was obviously
attractive to the Galatians — they too cannot have seen it as outright
Opposition to what they had heard from Paul; Paul has to play down
its attractiveness — ‘even if we, or an angel from heaven . . .’. What
is in view was evidently a subtle variation on Paul’s own gospel,
rather than something self-evidently false. Paul’s response to this
different understanding of what faith in Christ involved is abrupt:
‘Let him be accursed’! The sentiment, we might note, is a good deal
closer to the polemics of the Reformation era than to the gentler
language of today’s ‘conversations’.

84 The Evidence for Jesus

In the very next chapter of Galatians Paul returns to the attack.
He tells how the Gentile convert, Titus, was a test case in the debate
on whether Gentiles needed to be circumcised in order to become
Christians. The debate took place in Jerusalem and involved Paul
and Barnabas, the Jerusalem leadership (particularly James, Peter
and John), and those whom Paul calls ‘false brethren’.

I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the
gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be
running or had run in vain. But even Titus, who was with me, was not
compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. But because of
false brethren secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our
freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into
bondage — to them we did not yield submission even for a moment,
that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. And from
those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no
difference to me; God shows no partiality) — those, I say, who were
of repute added nothing to me (Gal. 2.2-6).

Here again it would be too easy to dismiss ‘the false brethren’ as
only ‘pretend Christians’, fifth columnists of an alien faith. But once
again that would be unfair to ‘the false brethren’. Since they were
fully involved in the debate within the Jerusalem church about the
requirements laid on Gentile converts to faith in Christ, they must
have been regarded as acceptable to or in good standing with the
Jerusalem leadership - on the conservative wing of the Judaean
church, no doubt, but members of the congregations who named the
name of Jesus none the less. It is Paul who calls their Christian
profession in some question, so certain was he that their under-
standing of what being a Christian involved was too narrow and
constrictive of Christian freedom.

We might just note also in passing that his attitude to the Jerusalem
leadership itself shows a vigorous independence and unwillingness to
opt for easy compromise. He calls then ‘those who were reputed to
be something’ - a distancing phrase which acknowledges that they
were held in high reputation — but not necessarily by him! And he
adds in parenthesis: ‘what they once were makes no difference to me
— God shows no favouritism’ (2.6 - RSV does not bring out the full
force of the parenthesis).

Most striking of all is the fierceness of Paul’s language in chapter
5 of the same letter - Gal. 5.1-12. Here Paul urges his readers
strongly to resist the temptation to compromise their freedom by
accepting what we can now see is best identified as a narrower under-
standing of Christian faith.

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not
submit again to a yoke of slavery. Now I, Paul, say to you that if you

Earliest Christianity 85

receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify
again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep
the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified
by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit,
by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus
neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith
working through love. You were running well; who hindered you from
obeying the truth? This persuasion is not from him who called you. . . .

And so on - ending with the astonishing outburst:
I wish those who unsettle you would mutilate themselves!

Once again RSV has given us a softer rendering than the Greek calls
for. The force of Paul’s outburst would be given better if we translated
bluntly:

I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!
Oi as the Jerusalem Bible neatly puts it:

Tell those who are disturbing you (with calls for your circumcision) I
would like to see the knife slip.

Not quite the language of constructive ecumenical dialogue!

Lest it be thought that Paul wrote Galatians on an off-day and that
elsewhere he is a paragon of ecumenical openness and understanding,
we should just note two other letters where the same sort of
passionate denunciation appears — I] Corinthians 11. 3-5, 13-15 and
Philippians 3.2.

I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your
thoughts will be ied astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.
For if someone comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we
preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received,
or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you
submit to it readily enough (II Cor. 11.3-4).

The language and intent is very similar to that of the first Galatians
passage. And the same deduction can be made. Those attacked by
Paul would clearly not regard themselves as opponents of faith in
Christ. They preached Jesus. Reception of the Spirit was as important
for them as for Paul. Theirs too was a gospel offer. Paul here is
attacking Christian evangelists who evidently understood Christianity
somewhat differently from Paul — but Christian evangelists none the
less.

More striking still is the passage which follows:

I think that I am not in the least inferior to these superlative

apostles ... For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen,
disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even

86 The Evidence for Jesus

Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his
servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their
end will correspond to their deeds (II Cor. 11.5, 13-15).

Paul here is attacking not simply Christian evangelists, but Christian
apostles! Clearly they called themselves ‘apostles of Christ’. Paul calls
them ‘superlative apostles’. The phrase signifies both that they were
very highly regarded as apostles, and that Paul’s view of their status
was not a little jaundiced. But worse is to follow! They are ‘false
apostles’, ‘servants of Satan’! Clearly there is a rift here of some
magnitude between two bands of Christian missionaries, indeed we
may say between two branches of Christianity, or even between two
kinds of Christianity. And the differences between them are not
minor squabbles but focus on central questions of what Christianity
is and how it should be lived out.

The final passage worth noting in Paul is Philippians 3.2 — ‘Look
out for the dogs, look out for the evil workers, look out for those
who mutilate the flesh’. Again the target is the same — fellow Jews
who insisted that Gentile conversion to Christ must be marked by
circumcision. From the parallel with the passages in 11 Corinthians
and Galatians we may fairly conclude that they were not simply fellow
Jews, but fellow Jewish Christians. And again the language is fierce
— ‘dogs’ — an insult presumably as offensive then as the modern
American slang, ‘son of a bitch’! Here too we need to shake ourselves
and remember that Paul is probably speaking once again of
Christians! Hardly the sort of language to inspire mutual respect
and confidence.

Unfortunately we have no writings from Paul’s Jewish Christian
opponents preserved for us — not in the New Testament anyway.
That, however, should not be taken as an excuse to dismiss these
Opponents simply as unreformed Jews or as heretics before the
concept of heresy had been formulated. The fact is that the viewpoint
which Paul resists so fiercely can be identified in greater or less degree
with the form of Christianity which held sway in the mother church
of Christianity - Jerusalem itself. The book of Acts represents their
position very vividly. When Paul returns from his missionary endeav-
ours for the last time to Jerusalem, he is met by James (the brother
of Jesus) and the elders, who at once tell him:

You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of
those who have believed; they are all zealous for the law, and they
have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among
the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their
children or observe the customs (Acts 21.20-21).

That more extreme expression of Jewish Christian faith (‘all zealous

Earliest Christianity 87

for the law’) is, as I have said, not represented within the New
Testament documents themselves. But there are more modified
versions of it. They come some way towards Paul, but still preserve
the emphases of a somewhat different understanding of what it means
to become and to be a Christian. The most striking example is James
2.18-24:

Some one will say, ‘You have faith and I have works’. Show me your
faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my
faith. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons
believe — and shudder. Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow,
that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father
justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You
see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed
by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘Abraham believed
God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’ [Gen. 15.6]; and
he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by
works and not by faith alone.

The point here is that the slogan ‘justified by faith alone’ is almost
certainly a Pauline slogan, or at least one derived immediately from
Paul’s emphasis on the sole sufficiency of faith (as in Rom. 3.28).
Indeed, it almost seems as though James has in view Paul’s own line
of argument in that part of his letter to the Romans. For at the end
of Romans 3 Paul uses the same Jewish creed that ‘God is one’ to
advance his own argument that God justifies all by faith. And then,
just like James, he immediately goes on in chapter 4 to expound
Genesis 15.6 as proving that God justified Abraham by faith and not
by works. The parallel is so close that we may be pardoned for
wondering whether James is not deliberately trying to refute or at
least correct Paul’s own argument as developed in Romans 3 and 4.
At all events, the ‘foolish fellow’ whom James addresses must have
been using an argument very much like Paul’s. And even if James
does not allude directly to Rorhans 3-4, it cannot be denied that
James’ exposition of Genesis 15.6 reads that Old Testament text in
a way which is at some odds with Paul’s exposition of the same text
in Romans 4. The attitude of the letter of James in fact comes close
to that expressed in the description of the Jerusalem Christians
cited above (p. 86): unlike Paul, James regards the law as ‘per-
fect’, ‘the law of liberty’ (James 1.25). The attribution of the letter
to James, the principal leader of the Jerusalem church, from where
much hostility towards Paul emerged, is therefore not altogether
surprising.

88 The Evidence for Jesus
Two Forms of Earliest Christianity

It thus becomes clear that what we have already in the first generation
of Christianity is two forms of Christianity. From the passages quoted
above and various other indications drawn from both inside and
beyond the New Testament, we can build up a clearer picture of
these two types — or should we say, branches or even denominations
of Christianity? On the one hand, what is most fairly, if still mislead-
ingly, called ‘Jewish Christianity’. On the other, what even less
adequately can be called ‘Gentile Christianity’.

Jewish Christianity

This was the earliest form of Christianity — the form of Christianity
which first emerged in Jerusalem and Palestine, and which retained
its chief strength there, being undoubtedly the strongest form of
Christianity in the Jewish heartland. These (Jewish) Christians felt it
important to stress the continuity of the new movement with Judaism
— the child (Christianity) taking after its parent. They saw the new
movement not as a separate religion, but simply what the scholars
sometimes call ‘eschatological Judaism’ — that is, the Judaism of the
new age, the Judaism intended by God at the climax of history, but
still essentially Judaism. For them Jesus was nothing if he was not the
Messiah, the Messiah of Jewish expectation. For them membership of
the people of God was still necessary to salvation — and that meant
the people of Israel, the Jews. Outside the covenant God had made
with his people Israel] there could be no salvation.

It followed inevitably for the Jewish Christian that the law was still
central to God’s purpose of salvation. The law had been given to
the covenant people as their badge of belonging and to define their
responsibility as members of the covenant people. Obedience to the
law was the mark of membership of the people of God. Therefore
circumcision was still essential. How could it be otherwise when God
had specified so clearly that circumcision was a ‘sign of the covenant’,
as eternal an obligation as the covenant itself? The ruling of scripture
was unequivocal: No circumcision, no covenant! ‘Any uncircumcised
male who is not circumcised in ‘the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut
off from his people: he has broken my covenant’ (Gen. 17.9-14).

For the same reason other regulations regarded as central to the law
of the covenant could not be disregarded and continued to determine
(Jewish) Christian life-style and conduct — particularly observance of
the sabbath and of the dietary laws (such as we have in Leviticus 11).
As we saw above, the chief focus of dispute for Paul was circumcision.
But these other elements of the controversy between Jewish and

Earliest Christianity 89

Gentile Christianity are echoed in such passages as Romans 14.2,5
and Gal. 4.10. In particular, it was disagreement over food laws which
evidently caused the split in the Christian church in Antioch, which
Paul describes in Galatians 2.11-15.

We can also deduce that the pattern of church order which emerged
in Jerusalem was much more closely based on the synagogue model
than we find in Paul - church leader (James) and elders (as in Acts
21.18), in contrast to the more charismatic pattern of prophets and
teachers which we find in the churches most closely associated with
the Gentile mission (as in Acts 13.1-2 and I Cor. 12.28). But it would
take too long to develop the point here.

Gentile Christianity

This was the type of Christianity which emerged when the new
faith in Jesus the Christ began to move out beyond Palestine and
beyond Judaism itself. According to the Acts of the Apostles, this
breakthrough took place in Syrian Antioch (the third largest city of
the Roman Empire). There ‘the Hellenists’ (Acts 6.1), who had been
identified with Stephen and who were probably the chief targets of
the persecution which followed Stephen’s death (Acts 7.57-8.4), first
preached to Greeks (= Gentiles) (Acts 11.20). There it would appear
that increasing numbers of Gentile converts resulted in a form of
Christianity which sat loose to the law, or at least too loose for many
Jerusalem believers (Gal. 2.11-15). And from there Paul went forth
as a missionary (Acts 13.1-3) and began a sequence of missionary
operations which demonstrated his claim to be ‘apostle to the
Gentiles’.

‘Gentile Christianity’, in other words, is a way of describing the
form of Christianity which emerged particularly in the churches
founded by Paul. If Paul himself is any guide, these congregations
still maintained strongly that they stood in continuity with Judaism.
That is why the title ‘Gentile Christianity’ is less than adequate: many
Jews, including Paul, belonged to this growing stream of Christianity;
just as, no doubt, there were at least some Gentiles who ‘judaized’
all the way to what we are here calling ‘Jewish Christianity’.

The difference was that the Jewish heritage claimed by Gentile
Christianity was a Judaism transformed, a Judaism wholly open to
Gentiles on equal terms with Jews. Membership of the covenant
people of God was now understood to be determined wholly by faith
- as Paul taught his converts so forcefully in arguments summed up
in Galatians 3 and Romans 4. Circumcision was no longer necessary
~ a major departure from such a clearly worded commandment of
scripture (Gen. 17). Membership of the people of God was no longer

90 The Evidence for Jesus

to be thought of as dependent on keeping food laws and sabbath.
What began on the basis of faith should continue on that basis.

The free-er life-style of Gentile Christianity (free-er in respect of
the Jewish law) was probably mirrored in the free-er forms of worship
and ministry which Paul seems to encourage in such chapters as
Romans 12 and I Corinthians 12.

No doubt the patterns grouped under these two headings (Jewish
Christianity and Gentile Christianity) were a good deal more complex
and overlapped to a greater extent than we have time to explore
here. No doubt too there were many factors involved - theological,
social, cultural, and so on. And for all their differences, we must
always recall that they were part of the same movement (Christ-
ianity), held together by their common faith in Jesus as God’s Messiah
and Son, raised by God from the dead as the beginning of the new
age, and probably also by the breadth of vision and sympathy of
Peter in particular. But it is clear, nevertheless, that in the beginning
there were at least two major divergent patterns of Christianity, and
that the diversity was more than simply a difference of emphasis or
a difference in detail. However uncomfortable the historical
conclusion may be, we can hardly avoid speaking of different forms
or styles or types of first-century Christiantiy — that is, of apostolic
Christianity.

The spectrum of first-century Christianity

The diverse patterns of first-century Christianity can be illustrated
diagramatically. Once again it should be clearly understood that the
diagram opposite is inadequate: for better effect it would need to be
three-dimensional; and both dating and relative positioning of some
of the New Testament documents are very tentative. The diagram is
illustrative rather than definitive. But for all its roughness, at least
the diagram helps to bring out the point that first-century Christianity
did not consist of clearly distinct groups. In its earliest years, Christ-
ianity quickly became more like a spectrum (a three-dimensional
spectrum, remember), with quite considerable divergence and
disagreement between the ends.

The diagram needs little interpretation. As we now know more
clearly, first-century Judaism itself was far from being a monolithic
or homogeneous faith. It too was more of a spectrum. The common
ground centred on the conviction that the one God had chosen Israel
as his people and had given the law to direct their life. But that
central conviction was understood and lived out in a range of different
ways and degrees by the mass of the people and by the various special

Earliest Christianity 91

First J U D A I S M
century
30 JES US \ <<

First Christians

Hellenists Jerusalem
Christians \ *
Paul Opponents \ ;
60 of Paul %
%,
Sw

Mark x

Hebrews I Peter James

Luke-Acts Matthew

90 John Pastorals
Second Gnostic Catholic Jewish Rabbinic
century Christianity Christianity Christianity Judaism

interest groups within Judaism — Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, and
later, Zealots.

Within this spectrum of first-century Judaism, the impact of Jesus
gave rise to two main emphases, as outlined above. (1) A version of
reformed or eschatological Judaism, which still thought of itself in
Jewish terms, as defined in terms of the Jewish people, as marked
out by the traditional boundaries of Judaism as well as the newer
boundary of baptism in the name of Jesus. On the diagram this
side of Christianity is denoted particularly by the labels ‘Jerusalem
Christians’ and ‘Opponents of Paul’. (2) A movement to draw in
Gentiles more and more, and solely on the basis of faith in Jesus —
that is, of course, on the basis of faith in Jesus as the agent of the
same one God and raised by him from death. But the particular
emphasis on the sole sufficiency of faith in God alone (without ‘works
of the law’) involved a decisive change in the older understanding of
what it meant to be the people of God. On the diagram this
developing and different form of Christianity is denoted by the labeis
‘Hellenists’ and ‘Paul’.

On the spectrum of first-century or apostolic Christianity, the ends
of the spectrum merged into the wider spectrum of first-century
religion in the eastern end of the Mediterranean. Christianity seen as
reformed or eschatological Judaism (1) was simply part of the larger

92 The Evidence for Jesus

spectrum of first-century Judaism and overlapped with other interest
groups on that spectrum. That is why on the diagram the opponents
of Paul are shown as overlapping with the Pharisees. According to
Acts 15.5 ‘some believers belonged to the party of the Pharisees’.
Another indication of the overlap is the difficulty of knowing whether
the phrase ‘those of the circumcision’ (‘the circumcision party’ in RSV
~ Acts 11.2 and Gal. 2.12) means Jews or more particularly Jewish
Christians.

At the other end of the spectrum of first-century Christianity, the
developing Gentile Christianity (2) began to merge into the larger
religiosity of the wider Greek world. This wider religiosity was typi-
cally syncretistic. That is to say, it willingly saw different national
religions as simply part of a single more universal religion. And
frequently different elements from different religious systems were
combined to form new hybrids. Within this wider pattern of religion
the new Christian movement would seem to many to be simply one
further variation on a common theme and to provide opportunity for
further permutations and combinations. We can see something of this
happening in the churches at Corinth (Greece) and Colossae (Asia
Minor). For example, a number of the Corinthian Christians obvi-
ously made much of ‘wisdom’ and ‘knowledge’ (I Cor. 1-3, 8) and
seem to have reacted against the Christian claim that the body would
be raised (I Cor. 15). Such ideas and attitudes were characteristic of
the wider Greek religious traditions. And at Colossae the mixture
included ‘philosophy . . . according to the elemental spirits of the
universe’, ‘questions of food and drink’, observance of new moon
and sabbath (notice the Jewish element), ‘worship of angels’ and
visions (Col. 2.8-18).

Of course the New Testament writers themselves do not regard
this merging of the Christian spectrum into other forms of religion as
desirable. Paul, as we have seen, warns fiercely against confusing
Christianity with the older understanding of Judaism. And he, and
subsequently other New Testament writers, warns no less strenuously
against those who were in danger of losing sight of Christianity’s
distinctiveness. Nevertheless, the uncomfortable fact remains that the
historical reality of the earliest Christian churches was quite different
from the ideal so often projected back upon ‘the apostolic church’ by
later Christians.

To that extent, at any rate, Jesus: the Evidence was justified in its
portrayal of Christian beginnings. But the claims made in that series
were more far reaching, and since they take us beyond the limits of
the New Testament and of the first century, we must pursue our own
analysis a little further (still with reference to the diagram on the
previous page).

Earliest Christianity 93
Earliest Christianity in the Second and Subsequent Generations

The second generation of Christianity showed no real narrowing of
the spectrum thus far described, no real lessening of the diversity.
For the evidence here we must refer to the New Testament documents
written between about ap 65 and 100 and to the Christianity they
represent. On a two-dimensional diagram, of course, it is not possible
to represent the true interrelationships of these second generation
writings of first-century Christianity. Certainly they continue to
cohere in their common faith in Christ as God’s man and their Lord
~ with all that that involves for other beliefs and for worship. But it
would be unfair to them not to recognize their distinct emphases
within that common faith and life.

The diagram attempts to represent something of this, though in a
necessarily incomplete way: Mark, probably the earliest of the
Gospels, close to Paul in his emphasis on Christ’s passion; I Peter
too with some characteristic Pauline emphases; Hebrews with its own
very distinctive way of speaking of Jesus using both Jewish categories
and the categories of Greek philosophy. Towards the other end of
the spectrum, James, as we have already suggested; with Matthew not
so far from Paul in emphasis, but certainly the most characteristically
Jewish of the Gospels; and Luke-Acts probably providing something
of a bridge between Paul and the rest of Christianity, focussing on
Paul alone as the hero of the second half of Acts, but presenting him
as much more amenable to the emphases stemming from Jerusalem
than his own letters would suggest.

Towards the end of the first century we should probably locate the
New Testament writings which became most influential in determining
the subsequent doctrine of Christ and in setting the pattern for the
future structure of the church catholic. I refer, on the one hand, to
John’s Gospel with its high (and as we have seen, developed) view
of Christ, which also shows knowledge of the wider religious specu-
lation of the time. And, on the other, to the Pastoral Epistles (I
and II Timothy and Titus), which give clear evidence of a more
institutionalized pattern of church order already becoming established
(bishops, elders, deacons).

As we move into the second century the spectrum begins to assume
a more regular pattern, with the options more clearly defined, and
the opposite ends of the spectrum beginning to form more clearly
distinct and different kinds of Christianity.

94 The Evidence for Jesus
Catholic Christianity

The strongest currents in the different forms of first-century Christ-
ianity flowed into Catholic Christianity, which thus became the main-
stream of the Christian tradition and church, and which two centuries
later became the established religion of the Roman Empire. Its
distinctive characteristics were formed by the emergence of a clear-
cut ecclesiastical organization and a firmly defined ‘rule of faith’.

In the second century episcopacy steadily gained ground within
Catholic Christianity, as the most desirable and necessary pattern of
church order — the bishop as the focus of unity and the bulwark
against false teaching. Hand in hand with this came the re-emergence
of the distinction between clergy and laity, priest and people — an
Old Testament distinction which had been left behind in the New
Testament period, but which now once again began to become part
of the self-understanding of Catholic Christianity. By the same
process the sacraments became increasingly prominent in the Catholic
understanding of salvation, and more and more exclusively the means
of grace.

The ‘rule of faith’ emerged as a related development. With the
passage of the second century there came a growing sense of need
for Catholic Christians to distinguish the true faith from its corrupt
forms and unacceptable substitutes. There were too many others
laying claim to be heirs of the heritage left by Jesus and the apostles.
The true heirs had to defend their inheritance. So for the first time
we can begin to speak of a clear sense of Christian ‘orthodoxy’, as a
firmly defined faith distinguished from competing definitions, which
could in turn be dismissed as ‘heresy’.

A fundamental part of this emerging self-definition of Catholic
Christianity was the recognition of the need to define which writings
from the first generations were to be regarded as authoritative and
to be marked off from others. And thus the documents which we call
the New Testament began to be set apart from other writings, which
also claimed the inspiration of the Spirit, to function as a ‘canon’,
that is, as a yardstick of orthodoxy, a criterion of the catholic faith.

In this last development there was a certain element of irony. For
the fact is that the range of Christianity encompassed within the New
Testament documents is actually broader than the Catholic Christ-
ianity which recognized their canonicity. Even though the spectrum
of New Testament Christianity is narrower than the spectrum of
first-century Christianity, there are various elements within the New
Testament spectrum which, if truth be told, fitted rather uncomfort-
ably within the increasingly tight definitions of Catholic Christianity.

I am thinking, for example, of the fact that Jesus himself seems

Earliest Christianity 95

deliberately to have avoided setting up ritual boundaries for his
would-be disciples to observe: he practised no baptism, and his table-
fellowship was criticized for its openness. Alternatively, consider the
‘enthusiastic’ features in Acts: for those critical of ‘enthusiasm’ it is
inevitably somewhat perturbing to note that the first Christians seem
to have thrived on a diet of visions, experiences of ecstatic inspiration
and miracles. Or think again of the very charismatic character of
Paul’s idea of the body of Christ, of Hebrews’ strong denial of a
distinct priesthood within the new covenant people of God (distinc-
tions between priesthood and people belonging to the old covenant),
or of the individualism of John which has reminded many commen-
tators more of the piety to be found in Christian conventions for the
deepening of the spiritual life than of the more formal patterns of
catholic worship.

In drawing up the canon of the New Testament the early fathers
of the church catholic certainly took a major step forward in defining
Christianity and in marking it off from all competing or counterfeit
forms. But the canon they actually drew up defines a Christianity
which is in fact larger than their own perception of Christianity!

If Catholic Christianity was the mainstream to emerge from the
first century, we should also note that there were two other quite
strong streams which emerged on either side, as it were, of the
mainstream — different forms of Jewish Christiantiy, and a variety of
movements which fall under the heading of ‘Gnostic Christianity’.

Jewish Christianity

Israel rebelled against its Roman overlords twice within seventy
years — first in the second half of the 60s and again in the early 130s.
Both revolts failed - as was almost inevitable (apart from divine
intervention), given the disparity between the two opponents. And
with their failure, the destruction of the Jerusalem temple and the
subjugation of the heartland of Judaism, much of Judaism’s earlier
diversity either disappeared or faded in significance. The form which
survived with greatest strength was the Judaism of the Pharisees.
They regrouped and reorganized and began the same process as
Catholic Christianity — that of defining their faith more clearly, what
was acceptable and unacceptable, their own canon of scripture (what
Christians call the Old Testament). This form of Judaism, rabbinic
Judaism, in due course became Judaism proper, the trunk from which
grew the different branches of Judaism as we know them today.

One of the forms of the earlier more diverse Judaism which the
rabbis disowned was Christianity. As Catholic Christianity and
rabbinic Judaism each began to define itself with greater precision,

06 The Evidence for Jesus

so each began to pull away from the other. The two streams from
the same headwater flowed in divergent channels. In the widening
gap between these two main religious movements were left those
groups which had previously been able to thrive in the overlap
between Christianity and Judaism — hybrid forms of Jewish Christ-
ianity, both Jewish and Christian, but increasingly unacceptable to
both.

Some of these Jewish Christian groups could trace a respectable
line of descent from the earliest form of Jewish Christianity in Jeru-
salem. But as,Christianity grew and developed, as the emphases of
Paul, of Gentile Christianity and of John became accepted as integral
parts of Christianity proper, so these older undeveloped forms of
Christianity became increasingly dated and increasingly unacceptable
to catholic Christians. For the Jewish Christian of the second and
third centuries, Jesus was simply a prophet, James the first sole
leader of the Jerusalem church was the great hero, and Paul who had
transformed the faith by opening the door so wide to the Gentiles
was a renegade and apostate. Such Jewish Christian sects survived
for a century or two, but without the vitality of Catholic Christianity
or the determined purpose of rabbinic Judaism they slowly withered
and died. With them what had been a wing of apostolic Christianity
effectively disappeared from the spectrum of Christianity, diminishing
that spectrum, and giving free-er rein to some less than desirable
anti-Jewish tendencies among the remaining catholic faithful.

Gnostic Christianity

At the other end of the spectrum of first-century Christianity, it will
be recalled, came the more mixed or syncretistic forms of Christianity.
Again we should simply pause and remind ourselves that a two-
dimensional spectrum is inadequate to represent the complexity of
the situation, including the way in which each ‘end’ of the spectrum
could and did influence the other. In the second century this larger
syncretistic religiosity began to take shape in a number of different
religious systems which can be grouped under the general head ‘Gnos-
ticism’. When elements of Christian faith were included we can speak
of ‘Gnostic Christianity’.

The Gnostic movements of the second century were quite varied
in particular points of emphasis. But, speaking in generalized terms,
they shared a number of basic convictions which in greater or less
degree were common to them all. Chief of these were: (1) A sharp
dualism between spirit and matter, and between the upper world and
the lower world. Spirit alone was of heaven and good. Matter was of
the lower world, corrupted and evil. (2) The soul was a divine spark

Earliest Christianity 97

in man, a piece of heavenly spirit fallen to earth and imprisoned
within the material body, enclosed and stifled by the despised ‘mud’
of the flesh. (3) Salvation consisted in recalling the soul to its true
nature by providing it with knowledge (Greek, ‘gnosis’) of its true
home and with instructions on the way back to the upper world. In
Christian Gnosticism the Christian element added to the syncretistic
mix was (4) belief in Christ as a heavenly being who came down to
earth to give the vital gnosis to the lost souls. As a wholly spiritual
being, Christ only entered the man Jesus or appeared to be human,
but was really unchangingly divine and never truly united with human
flesh.

Up until the beginning of the twentieth century, Gnosticism was
thought to be an offshoot of Christianity, just another set of Christian
heresies. But since then it has become widely recognized in scholarly
circles that many of the basic elements of the Gnostic systems were
already current at the time of Jesus and the first Christians, if not
even earlier. Much of the twentieth-century scholarly debate about
Christian beginnings has thus focussed on the question of whether
Gnosticism was already in full flower before Christianity and whether
Christianity borrowed its ideas about Christ as heavenly redeemer
from Gnosticism, rather than the other way round. The largest
consensus has now reverted to a modified version of the older view:
gnostic ideas were part of the wider syncretistic religiosity of the
first century; but full-blown Gnosticism appeared only in the second
century. And to the extent that the Gnostic systems gave place to a
divine redeemer figure they probably did in fact draw this element
chiefly from Christianity. Gnostic Christianity as such does not appear
until the second century.

At this point, however, Jesus: the Evidence sounded a very different
note. It presented the thesis that Gnostic Christianity was a third
major strand of Christianity, more or less as old as the other two
strands (Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity), and with equal
claim to reflect the true teaching of Jesus as the other strands. In
other words, the tensions afflicting first-century Christianity involved
not only Jewish and Gentile Christians, but also Gnostic Christians.
This was presented not as a thesis proposed by a few scholars, which
it is, but as a matter of fact. How these Gnostic churches emerged
was not made clear. But at least an explanation had earlier been
offered for our lack of knowledge of them before now - namely, the
corollary thesis that evidence of and documents from these churches
were suppressed and destroyed when Catholic Christianity gained the
upper hand. That there is a large measure of truth in this is not to be
doubted, although it must have been a remarkably powerful Catholic

98 The Evidence for Jesus

church which could obliterate so completely all trace of the first-
century Gnostic churches.

Not quite all, however, according to Jesus: the Evidence. The new
thesis of first-century Gnostic churches is put forward on the basis of
documents found near the town of Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt in
December 1945. The reconstructed scene of the discovery was
replayed more than once in the first and third programmes of Jesus:
the Evidence. These were the documents mentioned at the beginning
of the present chapter, the documents whose uncovering, it was
inferred, gave a very different picture of Christian beginnings from
what had hitherto been accepted in Christian circles.

But is the inference justified? What do these documents tell us
about the beginnings of Christianity, or, more precisely, of Gnostic
Christianity? Most of the Nag Hammadi documents are indeed
strongly Gnostic in character, and so provide an invaluable first-
hand insight into Gnosticism in general and Gnostic Christianity in
particular, where previously we have had to depend on the polemical
accounts of the catholic fathers. But they do not really provide proof
of a first-century Gnostic Christianity. The documents themselves
were all written in the fourth century and go far to confirm the picture
of second and third century Gnosticism as we already knew it. And
while they do contain evidence of older traditions, Christian and non-
Christian, the real argument focusses on the issue of whether the
Gnostic elements are as old as or older than earliest Christianity.
Here, it has to be said, the thesis depends on special pleading -
particularly on the argument that an idea which shows no Christian
influence must therefore be older than (or as old as) Christianity. A
highly dubious argument, and one which has persuaded only a few
scholars. The more obvious interpretation of the Nag Hammadi docu-
ments is that they are all typically syncretistic: they draw bits and
pieces from a wide range of religious influences in the ancient world,
including Judaism and Christianity, but including others too. As such
they are wholly explainable in terms of what we now know about
second- and third-century Gnosticism.

In short, the suggestion that there were Gnostic churches already
in the first century is an unnecessary hypothesis. And if Jesus: the
Evidence was attempting to give a balanced view of how modern
historical scholarship now sees the beginnings of Christianity, it failed
lamentably at this point. So far as the period covered by the New
Testament documents is concerned, we are dealing with a more
limited spectrum, where the chief factors making for tension were
the Jewish Christianity which looked to James on one side and the
Gentile Christianity of which Paul was representative on the other.

Earliest Christianity 99
Conclusions

1. Earliest Christianity was quite a diverse phenomenon. Within the
spectrum of apostolic Christianity there was considerable room for
different emphases. And not only different emphases, but also some
quite serious disagreements. From one point of view this is a
depressing conclusion; (to strip away illusions and take off rose-tinted
spectacles can have a depressing effect). The Christianity established
by the first apostles was little different from Christianity since then —
the same sorts of tensions and differences, even divisions, such as we
know all too well today! But from another point of view it is a very
liberating, even encouraging conclusion. The first Christians were not
stained glass window saints, whose feet rarely touched ground. They
were like us! Their churches belonged not to paradise but to the real
world. Apart from anything else, this means that what is written to
these churches can speak all the more meaningfully and forcibly to
us, because it is written to churches like ours!

2. If we draw attention to the diversity of apostolic Christianity we
must also note its unity. If earliest Christianity was not a uniform
phenomenon but more like a spectrum of differing types of Christ-
ianity, we must also emphasize what it was which held the spectrum
together. What united the first Christians more than anything else
was their belief in Jesus — in Jesus as the climax of God's ongoing
purpose for man’s redemption, the one whom God had raised from
the dead and exalted as Lord, the man who demonstrated most clearly
what God is like. Clustered round this central distinguishing belief of
the first Christians were a number of others on which they would all
have agreed in essence, even if their outworking in fuller formulation
and practical application diverged in differing degrees: God, the
Creator and the Father of Jesus Christ, as one; salvation through
faith in Christ; the experience of the Spirit; the Old Testament as
scripture and the traditions of Jesus, both to be treasured as authori-
tative for faith and life; Christianity’s continuity with Israel, the
people of God; practice of baptism in the name of Jesus and of the
Lord’s Supper in remembrance of him; and the need for an ethical
outworking of faith through love. Such is the heartland of Christianity
still.

3. The spectrum held together by these convictions and practices
was broader than has often been assumed, but not as broad as some
have argued. The ends of the spectrum included beliefs and practices
of which the major spokesmen of apostolic Christianity did not
approve. Despite this, they did not rush to cut off the ends of the
spectrum. On the contrary, the first century was a period in which
the leading creative figures (particularly Paul and John) were in effect

100 The Evidence for Jesus

pushing out the ends of the spectrum and exploring the boundaries
and breadth of Christianity properly so called. Yet, even so, there
were those who found the spectrum too constrictive, who could not
live within it, and who developed forms and expressions of religious
faith and practice which increasingly in the second century were
judged to be unacceptable as expressions of that central faith in
Christ.

4. Though Catholicism subsequently narrowed the diversity of
acceptable Christianity by losing some of the openness and breadth of
apostolic Christianity, it nevertheless retained in the New Testament
canon a good range of that original diversity. Consequently we have
within the source documents of our common faith a powerful self-
correcting mechanism. They provide a penetrating criticism of any
attempts to force Christianity into a narrower channel or more tightly
controlled structure or more consistent form. And they have the
potential to spark off renewal which cannot easily be contained within
the more restrictive forms of traditional structures. By the grace
of God such movements — I think for example of St Francis, the
Reformation, John Wesley and twentieth-century Pentecostalism —
have often brought renewal to the church as a whole. Where man
seeks to control, God seeks to release!

Earliest Christianity 101

Note on the Gospel of Thomas

Since the claim made in Jesus: the Evidence, that Gnostic Christianity
was one of the oldest forms of Christianity, was largely based on the
Gospel of Thomas, it is probably advisable to say a little more about
It.
The Gospel of Thomas, a collection of 114 sayings of varying
lengths attributed to Jesus, is the most interesting and most
commented on of the Nag Hammadi documents mentioned above (p.
98). It is quite clear that many of the sayings go back to very early
memories of Jesus’ teaching. About twenty-five per cent of them are
paratiefed in whole or in part by Q tradition (the tradition which
provides a source for much of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke).
At the same time there is clear evidence that the sayings have been
worked over, elaborated in one or more directions and added to.
And again and again the most obvious explanation is that the Gnostic
elements belong to the elaborations of the later editions.

In fact we can trace some of the process of elaboration. For we
also have some earlier fragmentary papyri found at Oxyrhynchus in
Egypt round about the turn of the century. These contain what seem
to be one or more earlier editions of the Gospel of Thomas. This
observation is consistent with the relative datings of the documents,
since the papyri date from the end of the second or the first half of
the third centuries, while the Gospel of Thomas found at Nag
Hammadi was probably written no earlier than the fourth century.

From one of the sayings preserved in both we can begin to gain
some idea of how the elaboration proceeded.

Matthew 7.7-8 and 11.28 -'.. . Seek and you will find; . . . he who
seeks finds... .’. ‘Come to me. . . and I will give you rest.’

Pap. Ox. 654.5-9 ~ ‘(Jesus says:)
Let him who see(ks) not cease (seeking until) he finds;
and when he finds (he will) be astounded,
and having been (astoun)ded, he will reign;
an(d reigning), he will (re)st.’
(Clement of Alexandria also knows the saying in this form.)

Gospel of Thomas 2 — ‘Jesus said:
He who seeks should not stop seeking until he finds;
and when he finds, he will be bewildered (beside himself);
and when he is bewildered, he will marvel,
and will reign over the All.’

102 The Evidence for Jesus

‘The All’ is a regular Gnostic concept, and, as the above comparisons
suggest the most obvious explanation is that it was one of the last
elements to be added to the saying.

Here then we see a saying whose earliest form can indeed be traced
back with firm confidence to the earliest tradition of Jesus’ teaching.
But we can see too how the saying came to be elaborated and by
means of the elaboration given an increasingly Gnostic colouring. In
other words, the saying as we now have it in the Nag Hammadi
Gospel of Thomas gives no encouragement to the thesis of a form of
Gnostic Christianity already existing in the first century. Rather it
confirms the counter thesis that the Gnostic element in Gnostic
Christianity is a second-century syncretistic outgrowth on the stock
of the earlier Christianity. What we can see clearly in the case of
this one saying is probably representative of the lengthy process of
development and elaboration which resulted in the form of the Gospel
of Thomas found at Nag Hammadi.

However justified then the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas may be in
claiming that the apostle Thomas was the original source of the
sayings preserved in the Gospel of Thomas, it is hard to give much
credence to the claim that the Gnostic elements in that collection go
back to Thomas himself or to the earliest stages of the Thomas
tradition. Consequently the mere fact that the apostle Thomas is
linked by ancient tradition with the beginnings of Christianity else-
where, namely Edessa, in eastern Syria, hardly provides evidence
that the earliest form of Christianity in Edessa was Gnostic. Such a
flimsy link can hardly bear anything of the weight put upon it by
Jesus: the Evidence. By treating the speculation of a few scholars as
though it were something more in the nature of an established fact,
the programme did no service either to scholarship or to the investi-
gation of how Christianity began.

Concluding Reflections

Christianity has nothing to fear from scholarship! Scholarship is
concerned with truth — to discover the reality of things, of people and
society, of history and religion. And Christianity is also concerned
with truth. It is because Christianity claims to have found in Jesus
Christ the key to a true understanding of reality that it speaks so
much of that man from a small middle-eastern country nineteen and
a half centuries ago. Since Christianity and scholarship share the same
passion for truth, Christianity and scholarship are in fact natural allies
~ common foes of all forms of falsehood, distortion and obscurantism.

So Christianity has nothing to fear from scholarship. Scholars may
be a different matter! For individual scholars have their biases and
prejudices like every other human being. Individual scholars may see
a particular truth only partially or in a fragmentary way or in a
distorting light. They may even bend what they see of the truth to
serve their own or narrowly party ends. But even so, Christiantiy
need have little fear of such scholars. For scholars have to work from
the evidence available to them. And evidence has the happy knack
of undermining the overblown or unbalanced edifices built upon it.
The history of scholarship is littered with the wrecks and tatters of
theses and hypotheses and opinions which the evidence subverted or
outgrew. Thankfully, scholarship is larger than the opinions of any
particular scholar, however eminent.

So Christians have nothing to fear from scholarship and little to
fear from particular scholars. On the contrary, they should welcome
the critically inquiring and investigative skills of scholars. For since
Christians are also concerned with the truth, they should also want
to be made aware of and delivered from untruth, in all its forms. If
Christians have inherited a too one-sided or overly narrow under-
standing of Christianity, they should want to know it. If they have
developed a false perspective on any aspect of reality, they should
want to know it. If Christianity itself should happen to be false, they
should want to know that too. For if Jesus Christ is not in fact the
key to a true understanding of reality, the sooner they know that the
better. So Christians should welcome an open-minded and open-
ended inquiry after truth, confident with the confidence of faith that

104 The Evidence for Jesus

any clarification of the truth, any stripping away of distorting
accretions, any correction of misleading perspectives will only
strengthen their hold on the truth which is in Christ Jesus.

In such a spirit of inquiry we have looked at four large, but only
four, aspects of the beginnings of Christianity. My earnest hope is
that these all too brief investigations have illustrated the importance
and value of scholarly inquiry to the Christian faith and have helped
those who have persevered thus far to recognize that scholarship need
not be regarded as the enemy of faith or threatening to devotion. If
I were to spell out more fully what seems to me to be the importance
of the foregoing for the people of the pew, it would have to be along
the following lines.

1. The importance of recognizing the New Testament documents,
Gospels included, for what they are. The danger is ever present that
we make the Gospels what we want them to be — that we evaluate
them, consciously or unconsciously, by the criteria of modern histori-
ography or modern biography or indeed modern theology. They are
none of these. They are what they show themselves to be — Gospels
~ a quite distinctive type of literature. It was, in fact, these writings
which gave us the word (‘Gospel’) as the title of a book! As ‘Gospels’
they are concerned to proclaim Jesus. The real Jesus, the Jesus who
was and is. There is no flight from history with them, not even with
John’s Gospel. But neither is there a pedantic concern simply to
repeat and pass on earlier forms and formulae as though that was
how the gospel of Jesus Christ could adequately be preached. Rather,
if we are to speak in generalizations, their concern is to present the
heart of the matter, whether the heart of a particular teaching, or of
a particular incident, or the heart of the event of Jesus Christ as a
whole, and to present it in such a way that each episode as well as
the whole reveals the truth of Jesus, the truth of what he said or did
on a particular occasion, or the truth that is Jesus himself. The
scholarship which recognizes this character of the Gospels thereby
frees the Christian student and disciple to accept the Gospels on their
own terms, and thereby helps prevent the Christian student and
disciple from missing what is central out of overconcern for the
peripheral, from failing to see the wood because of the trees, from
losing the message in a fruitless debate over the detail.

As a partial parallel, readers may like to consider the relation of
this book to the lectures from which the book is derived. The book
is not the lectures. They were not tape-recorded or transcribed. But
the content is just the same, as anyone who reads the book and recalls
the lectures will no doubt confirm. Harder evidence is given by the
handouts, varying from one typewritten page to two and a half pages
per lecture. That outline, with my own marginal notes used in the

Concluding Refiection 105

lectures, provided the base or core of the chapters of the book, and
often I have incorporated the wording of the outline with little or no
change. The content is the same, but not the same. For on the one
hand there will be several spontaneous elaborations of particular
points given in the lectures which I have forgotten. And on the other
the exercise of setting down a full text on paper has allowed for a
good deal of elaboration and a degree of literary stylizing which was
neither appropriate nor practical in the lectures. The same, but not
the same. Are they a trustworthy record of what I said in the lectures?
Word for word — No! Sense for sense — assuredly Yes!

2. The importance of recognizing the inadequacy of human words
to speak adequately of divine reality. For example, it is no use the
Christian apologist insisting that Jesus has to be seen as the Son of
God in a fully literal sense. Unless we regard God as having a physical
body, and as conceiving Jesus through physical reproduction, we
cannot use ‘the Son of God’ for Jesus in such a literal sense. The title
is more in the nature of an analogy, or, if you like, a metaphor,
drawn from the everyday world of human conception and birth to
describe a relation which transcends the human and physical. Of
course the metaphor tells us something that is real and true — of a
relationship between God and Jesus which is as close in the divine
(and divine-human) sphere as the father-son relationship can be in
the human sphere. But the correlation between the two uses of the
word ‘son’ is not a one-to-one correlation.

To put the same point in a slightly different way. We must be
prepared to see some distinction or distance between the reality
denoted by phrases like ‘son of God’ and ‘resurrection’ and the
Phrases themselves. The reality behind these phrases should never be
confused with or reduced to the phrases themselves. Were it possible
to express the same reality more fully in more appropriate terms, we
would not want to remain confined and cramped within that phrase.
And part of a scholar’s task is to explore alternative formulations of
such key phrases to see if they do in fact ‘fit’? or express what we
know of that reality in a more meaningful way — a very necessary
task since the meaning of words and phrases changes from language
to language and from one epoch to another. The fact is that both the
phrases we have instanced (‘son of God’ and ‘resurrection’) have
proved themselves particularly appropriate to the task they were
given. Both express a truth about Jesus which other formulations do
not seem to grasp so well. But, nevertheless, it would be a mistake
to focus too much attention on the form and to confuse it with the
reality behind the form. And scholars must be encouraged to pry
behind our language, even our sacred language, to see what the
reality behind it was and is, lest we find one day too late that our

106 The Evidence for Jesus

language has become an idol which no longer embodies the truth we
should be living by.

3. The importance of recognizing the diversity within apostolic
Christianity, the Christianity of our canonical documents. The impli-
cations of this have not as yet been sufficiently appreciated in their
significance for the ecumenical discussions and hopes which have been
such a feature of twentieth-century Christianity. For it means that
the diversity of the denominations is much more firmly rooted in
the New Testament scriptures than has usually been acknowledged.
Apostolic Christianity contained a diversity of faith and order which
does not fit easily within a single organizational structure. Some at
least of the resistance to particular ecumenical schemes has been as
deeply grounded in the New Testament as the schemes themselves —
perhaps more so! This should give fresh cause for pause at a time
when more ambitious hopes of ecumenical coming together in Britain
have been stalled once again.

I have no wish whatsoever to backtrack on the ecumenical develop-
ments which have taken place. On the contrary, for many years I
have wanted to be known simply as a Christian rather than having to
own to particular labels. My concern is rather whether the canonical
weight given to the necessity (and inevitability) of diversity has been
given sufficient weight in our hopes for the coming great church. For
one important lesson from the New Testament seems to be, that
unless Christians are given room within any particular ecclesiastical
structure to express the truth of Christ and of his salvation as they
have understood and experienced it, they will simply express it outside
that structure. The movement of the Spirit in twentieth-century
Pentecostalism is simply a reminder that the Spirit blows where he
will. The Spirit creates the church and is not contained by the church.
Any church which does not give the Spirit sufficient freedom will
simply be bypassed by the Spirit. And since the life of the Spirit
comes to diverse expression in different cultures and contexts it is
imperative that the church of the future gives scope for that diversity,
for that canonical diversity, otherwise that diversity will simply
express itself in renewed tension and division. According to Paul, the
unity of the body of Christ depends on the diversity of its members
functioning in their diversity. Without sufficient diversity, the body
cannot be one!

4. If all this is so, then an important corollary follows for both
faith and order. It is that my truth and my confession and my liturgy
can never be the truth, the confession, the liturgy. It is always
provisional and approximate and inadequate in relation to the greater
reality which human words and actions can never encapsulate or fully
express. That must mean that humility is always more appropriate in

Concluding Reflection 107

such matters than dogmatism. But it also means that your truth and
your confession and your liturgy may also be as close to (or as far
from) that greater reality, even when it disagrees with mine on what
I or you count as important elements of the whole. Humility means
not only recognizing when I am less than right, but also recognizing
that we both may be right in more or less equivalent measure. How
dare I hit you over the head with my form of truth. How dare I insist
that you mouth my formulae after me. ‘Who are you to pass judgment
on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands
or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Master is able to make him
stand’ (Rom. 14.4).

Speaking personally, one of the most liberating insights which was
ever given me by God’s grace with regard to subjects on which
Christians disagree, was the recognition that in order for me to be
right, it is not necessary for you to be wrong! An insight which is as
true for denominations as it is for individuals. We all only ‘see in a
mirror dimly’. We all know only ‘in part’ (I Cor. 13.12). The full
light of God’s truth which will swallow up our partial insights and
provisional formulations has yet to shine in full strength on our petty
and disordered minds. Until then liberty of opinion, genuine respect
for those who differ and a reverent agnosticism in many matters of
secondary importance is a wholly proper and indeed essential
response of faith. Since we walk by faith and not by sight, our
confidence should be in the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
rather than.in what we can see and handle and control. ‘Let him who
boasts, boast‘of the Lord’!

Suggestions for Further Reading

1: The Gospels: Fact, Fiction or What?

R. E. Brown. The Critical Meaning of the Bible. Chapman and Paulist
Press, 1981.

R. F. Collins. Introduction to the New Testament. SCM Press and
Doubleday, 1983.

B. Gerhardsson. The Origins of the Gospel Traditions. SCM Press and
Fortress Press, 1979.

J. H. Hayes and C. R. Holladay. Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner's
Handbook. SCM Press and John Knox Press, 1983.

G. E. Ladd. The New Testament and Criticism. Eerdmans, 1966, and
Hodder, 1967.

I. H. Marshall (ed.). New Testament Interpretation. Paternoster, 1977,
and Eerdmans, 1978.

K. F. Nickle. The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction. SCM Press and
John Knox Press, 1982.

J. A. T. Robinson. Can We Trust the New Testament? Mowbray, 1977.

2: Did Jesus Claim to Be the Son of God?

J.D. G. Dunn. Christology in the Making. SCM Press and Westminster
Press, 1980.

M. Hengel. The Son of God. SCM Press and Fortress Press, 1976.

A. M. Hunter. According to John. SCM Press, 1968, and Westminster
Press, 1969.

I. H. Marshall. The Origins of New Testament Christology. IVP, 1976,
and Eerdmans, 1978.

C. F. D. Moule. The Origin of Christology. Cambridge, 1977.

J. Painter. John: Witness and Theologian. SPCK, 1975.

J. A. T. Robinson. The Human Face of God. SCM Press and Westmin-
ster Press, 1973.

S. Smalley. John—Evangelist and Interpreter. Paternoster and Attic
Press, 1978.

Suggestions for Further Reading 109

3: What Did the First Christians Believe About the Resurrection?

R. E. Brown. The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of
Jesus. Chapman and Paulist-Newman Press, 1973.

J. D. G. Dunn. Jesus and the Spirit. SCM Press and Westminster
Press, 1975, chapter 5.

P. Lapide. The Resurrection of Jesus. Augsburg, 1983, and SPCK,
1984.

C. F. D. Moule. The Significance of the Message of the Resurrection
for Faith in Jesus Christ. SCM Press and Allenson, 1968.

G. O’Collins. The Easter Jesus. Darton, Longman & Todd and Judson
Press (as The Resurrection of Jesus Christ), 1973.

P. Perkins. Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary
Reflection. Chapman and Doubleday, 1984.

A. M. Ramsey. The Resurrection of Christ. Geoffrey Bles, 1945, and
Presbyterian Board, 1946.

U. Wilckens. Resurrection. St. Andrew, 1977.

4: Earliest Christianity: One Church or Warring Sects?

R. E. Brown. The Churches the Apostles Left Behind. Chapman and
Paulist Presss, 1984.

S. Brown. The Origins of Christianity. Oxford, 1984.

F. F. Bruce. Men and Movements in the Primitive Church. Paternoster,
1979,

G. B. Caird. The Apostolic Age. Duckworth and Allenson, 1955.

J. D. G. Dunn. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament. SCM Press
and Westminster Press, 1977.

E. Pagels. The Gnostic Gospels. Weidenfeld & Nicolson and Random
House, 1979.

R. L. Wilken. The Myth of Christian Beginnings. SCM Press and John
Knox Press, 1979.

R. McL. Wilson. Gnosis and the New Testament. Blackwell and For-
tress Press, 1968.

Other writings by James Dunn of relevance to the issues raised by

Jesus: The Evidence

“The Messianic Secret in Mark,” Tyndale Bulletin 21, 1970, pp. 92-
117; briefer version in The Messianic Secret, ed. C. Tuckett, SPCK
and Fortress Press, 1983, pp. 116-131.

“Demythologizing—the Problem of Myth in the New Testament,” New
Testament Interpretation: Essays in Principles and Methods, ed. I.
H. Marshall, Paternoster, 1977, and Eerdmans, 1978, pp. 285~307.

(with G. H. Twelftree) “Demon-Possession and Exorcism in the New
Testament,” Churchman 94, 1980, pp. 210-225.

110 The Evidence for Jesus

“Models of Christian Community in the New Testament,” The Church
Is Charismatic: The World Council and the Charismatic Renewal,
ed. A. Bittlinger, WCC, 1981, pp. 99-116; also in Strange Gifts? A
Guide to Charismatic Renewal, ed. D. Martin and P. Mullen,
Blackwell, 1984, pp. 1-18.

“The Authority of Scripture According to Scripture,” Churchman 96,
1982, pp. 104-122, 201-225.

“Levels of Canonical Authority,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 4,
1982, pp. 13-60.

“Let John be John—A Gospel for Its Time,” Das Evangelium und die
Evangelien, ed. P. Stuhlmacher, J. C. B. Mohr, 1983, pp. 309-336.

Testing the Foundations: Current Trends in New Testament Study,
University of Durham, 1984.

Index of Biblical References

Genesis
15.6

Leviticus
i

I Samuel
21.1

IT Samuel
7.14

Psalms
22
78.24

Isaiah
45.22
45.23

Ezekiel
37.7-10

Daniel
12.2

Joel
2.32

Wisdom of Solomon
49

2.13-18

61

Matthew
1-2
3.7-10

13.44-46
13.53-58
13.53-18.35
18.3
18.23-24
19.16-30
20.29-30
23.29
26.26-29
26.42
27.3-10
27.52-53
27.62-66

4, 41
37

226.
23

28
28.1-10
28.4
28.6
28.8-10
28.13-15
28.15
28.17

Mark
1.14
1.14-15
1.16-20
1.21-28
2.23-28
4

4.3-8
4.9

4.21

4.23
4.24
4.25
5.1-9.50
$.21-43
6.1-6a
7.16

9

10

10.15
10.17-18
10.17-31
10.46
10.46-52
11.25-26
12.18-27
13.26
14.22-24
14.22~25
14.36
14.50

iff.
7, 18f.

112 Index of Biblical References

Mark—continued John 20.1-10 57f.
14.62 72 1.1-3 61 20.2~10 64
15.40-16.1 59 1.14 61 20.11-18 59
15.66-72 59 1.18 61 20.19 60
16 77 1.35-42 37 20.19-23 59
16.1-8 S6f. 3 36 20.24-29 59, 70
16.8 65, 71 3.1-15 38 20.28 61
3.3,5 35 20.31 43
3.22-33 37 21 70
Luke 3.23 37 21.1-23 59
1-2 19 3.27-30 41 21.2-3 59
3.7-9 4 3.31-36 41
4.31-37 6 4 36 Acts
6 8f. 4.7-15 39 1.1-11 59
6.1-5 10f. 5.2 37 1.2-3 69
6.20-23 22f. 5.15 41 1.4 68
6.24-26 23 5.16-27 31f. 1.18-19 64
6.38 33 5.28-29 67 2.41 60
7.1-10 14ff. 5-11 42 4.4 60
7.6b-9 15 6 36 4.13 60
8 8f. 6.25-58 39f. 4,19-20 60
8.16 33 6.35 35 4.31 60
8.17 33 6.43-51 34, 39 6.1 89
8.18 33 6.51-58 38 6-7 42
8.26-9.50 4f. 7.13 41 7.57-8.4 89
8.40-56 1iff. 8 36 9 16
10.9 35 8.12 35, 44 9.5-6 17
10.21 45, 48 8.34-36 40 9.7 17
10.22 48 8.44-47 40 9.15-16 17
10.29-35 33 8.58 35 11.2 92
at 8f. 9.7 37 11.20 89
11.2 46 9.22 4if. 15.1-2 42
11.2-4 236. 10 38 15.5 90
11.33 33 10.7 35 17.32 74
12 8f. 10.11 38 20.29-30 80
12.2 33 10.16 38 21.20 60
13.28-30 15 10.30 44 21.20-21 85
14 8f. 11.25 35 22.7-10 17
15.11~32 33 11.41 46 22.9 17
16 8f. 12.42 42 22.15 17
18.17 38 14.6 35 22.21 17
18.18-30 20f. 14.16 36 23.6 72
18.35 64 14.25-26 45 26.14-16 17
22.17-23 25f. 15.1 35 26.16-18 17
22.19-20 38 15.1-11 34
23.46 46 15.26 45 Romans
24.1-11(12) S6f. 16.2 42 3~4 87
24.13-35 58 16.12,14 45 3.28 87
24.36-43 58f., 70 16.12-15 45 6.4 65
24.21 59 17 36, 46 8.15-16 47
24.34 69 17.21 32 8.16-17 47
24.39 74 18.36 35 9.5 61

24.49 69 20 70 10.9 61, 62

Index of Biblical References

10.13
12
14.2,5
14.4

I Corinthians
1-3

8

11.23-25

61
90
89
107

92

92

25f.

90

89

107

65, 69, 70,
74, 92

70

59, 70, 71
65

69

69

74

53

73

74

74

15.42-46 74
15.50 74

Il Corinthians

11,3-4 85
11.5 85f.
11.13-15 856.
12.7 71
Galatians

1.6-9 8&3
1.15-16 17
2.2-6 84
2.11-15 89
2.12 92
4.6 47
4.7 47
4.10 89
5.1-12 84f.
ae

2.9-1 62
3.2 85f.
3.5-6 42

Colossians
2.8-18 92
2.18 71
I Timothy
4.1-3 80f.
James
1.25 87
2.18-24 87
I John
3.4-10 40f.
Sore of Thomas
101
3 33
6 33
8 33
21 33
33 33
41 33
63 33
65 33
96 33

113